Retrieval Practice for Word Learning for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children

NCT05512000 | Completed Results

• 1 other identifier: 221773
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 13
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

This study is designed to advance the promising yet underutilized research on retrieval practice by evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of two key retrieval practice features (feedback and spacing). The study uses four single case adapted alternating treatments studies, each with 5- to 9-year-old children who are deaf and hard of hearing to evaluate the effects of feedback and spacing on the efficiency of word learning and retention.

Conditions

Language Impairment; Hearing Loss

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (4)

• Labeling - Acquisition Effectiveness

  Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy labeling target words expressively (number of target words correctly labeled when shown the object divided by the number of words in the set \[i.e., 4\] times 100). The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for at least one active intervention condition versus the control condition within the comparison phase.

  End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).

• Labeling - Acquisition Efficiency

  Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy labeling target words expressively (number of target words correctly labeled when shown the object divided by the number of words in the set \[i.e., 4\] times 100). The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for the condition hypothesized to be superior (i.e., "feedback" or "spaced") within the comparison phase.

  End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).

• Labeling - Retention Effectiveness

  Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy labeling target words expressively (number of target words correctly labeled when shown the object divided by the number of words in the set \[i.e., 4\] times 100). The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for at least one active intervention condition versus the control condition within the maintenance phase.

  Four weeks after the intervention ends

• Labeling - Retention Efficiency

  Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy labeling target words expressively (number of target words correctly labeled when shown the object divided by the number of words in the set \[i.e., 4\] times 100). The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for the condition hypothesized to be superior (i.e., "feedback" or "spaced") within the maintenance phase.

  Four weeks after the intervention ends

Secondary Outcomes (8)

• Identifying - Acquisition Effectiveness

  End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).

• Identifying - Acquisition Efficiency

  End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).

• Semantic - Acquisition Effectiveness

  End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).

• Semantic - Acquisition Efficiency

  End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).

• Identifying - Retention Effectiveness

  Four weeks after the intervention ends

Study Arms (4)

Contrast A

EXPERIMENTAL

Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials

Behavioral: Feedback with massed trials; Behavioral: No feedback with massed trials

Contrast B

EXPERIMENTAL

Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials

Behavioral: Feedback with spaced trials; Behavioral: No feedback with spaced trials

Contrast C

EXPERIMENTAL

Spaced vs massed trials without feedback

Behavioral: No feedback with massed trials; Behavioral: No feedback with spaced trials

Contrast D

EXPERIMENTAL

Spaced vs massed trials with feedback

Behavioral: Feedback with massed trials; Behavioral: Feedback with spaced trials

Interventions

Feedback with massed trials BEHAVIORAL

The participant receives feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. For massed trials, exposures for one word are provided before moving to the next word in each session.

Contrast A; Contrast D

Feedback with spaced trials BEHAVIORAL

The participant receives feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. For spaced trials, exposures for each word are interspersed with one another (e.g., an exposure for word 1, then one for word 3, then one for word 2, etc.) in each session.

Contrast B; Contrast D

No feedback with massed trials BEHAVIORAL

The participant does not receive feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. For massed trials, exposures for one word are provided before moving to the next word in each session.

Contrast A; Contrast C

No feedback with spaced trials BEHAVIORAL

The participant does not receive feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. For spaced trials, exposures for each word are interspersed with one another (e.g., an exposure for word 1, then one for word 3, then one for word 2, etc.) in each session.

Contrast B; Contrast C

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 5 Years - 9 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Child (0-17)

You may qualify if:

• At least minimal prelingual hearing loss
• Standard scores of at least 70 for receptive and expressive vocabulary skills
• English is only spoken language

You may not qualify if:

• Below average nonverbal cognition
• Uncorrected vision impairment
• Evidence of severe motor impairment

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Vanderbilt University Medical Center: lead

Study Sites (1)

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Nashville, Tennessee, 37232, United States

Location

Related Publications (37)

• Antia SD, Lederberg AR, Easterbrooks S, Schick B, Branum-Martin L, Connor CM, Webb MY. Language and Reading Progress of Young Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2020 May 30;25(3):334-350. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enz050.

  PMID: 32052022 BACKGROUND

• Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society, 2, 59-68.

  BACKGROUND

• Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the. Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing, 185.

  BACKGROUND

• Bobzien, J. L., Richels, C., Schwartz, K., Raver, S. A., Hester, P., & Morin, L. (2015). Using repeated reading and explicit instruction to teach vocabulary to preschoolers with hearing loss. Infants & Young Children, 28(3), 262-280.

  BACKGROUND

• Boons T, De Raeve L, Langereis M, Peeraer L, Wouters J, van Wieringen A. Expressive vocabulary, morphology, syntax and narrative skills in profoundly deaf children after early cochlear implantation. Res Dev Disabil. 2013 Jun;34(6):2008-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.03.003. Epub 2013 Apr 11.

  PMID: 23584181 BACKGROUND

• Brennan-Jones CG, White J, Rush RW, Law J. Auditory-verbal therapy for promoting spoken language development in children with permanent hearing impairments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 12;2014(3):CD010100. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010100.pub2.

  PMID: 24619508 BACKGROUND

• Carpenter SK. Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: the benefits of elaborative retrieval. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Nov;35(6):1563-9. doi: 10.1037/a0017021.

  PMID: 19857026 BACKGROUND

• Carpenter, S. K., & Yeung, K. L. (2017). The role of mediator strength in learning from retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 128-141.

  BACKGROUND

• Coyne JH, Borg JM, DeLuca J, Glass L, Sumowski JF. Retrieval practice as an effective memory strategy in children and adolescents with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Apr;96(4):742-5. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.09.022. Epub 2014 Oct 13.

  PMID: 25312580 BACKGROUND

• Fritz CO, Morris PE, Nolan D, Singleton J. Expanding retrieval practice: an effective aid to preschool children's learning. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Jul;60(7):991-1004. doi: 10.1080/17470210600823595.

  PMID: 17616915 BACKGROUND

• Geers AE, Mitchell CM, Warner-Czyz A, Wang NY, Eisenberg LS; CDaCI Investigative Team. Early Sign Language Exposure and Cochlear Implantation Benefits. Pediatrics. 2017 Jul;140(1):e20163489. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-3489. Epub 2017 Jun 12.

  PMID: 28759398 BACKGROUND

• Geers AE, Sedey AL. Language and verbal reasoning skills in adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience. Ear Hear. 2011 Feb;32(1 Suppl):39S-48S. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181fa41dc.

  PMID: 21832889 BACKGROUND

• Goossens, N. A., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P., & Tabbers, H. K. (2014). The effect of retrieval practice in primary school vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 135-142.

  BACKGROUND

• Haebig E, Leonard LB, Deevy P, Karpicke J, Christ SL, Usler E, Kueser JB, Souto S, Krok W, Weber C. Retrieval-Based Word Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Development Language Disorder II: A Comparison of Retrieval Schedules. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Apr 15;62(4):944-964. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0071.

  PMID: 30986145 BACKGROUND

• Jones, A. C., Wardlow, L., Pan, S. C., Zepeda, C., Heyman, G. D., Dunlosky, J., & Rickard, T. C. (2016). Beyond the rainbow: Retrieval practice leads to better spelling than does rainbow writing. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 385-400.

  BACKGROUND

• Kaipa R, Danser ML. Efficacy of auditory-verbal therapy in children with hearing impairment: A systematic review from 1993 to 2015. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Jul;86:124-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.04.033. Epub 2016 May 3.

  PMID: 27260595 BACKGROUND

• Karpicke JD, Blunt JR, Smith MA. Retrieval-Based Learning: Positive Effects of Retrieval Practice in Elementary School Children. Front Psychol. 2016 Mar 11;7:350. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00350. eCollection 2016.

  PMID: 27014156 BACKGROUND

• Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, S. S. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: The need for guided retrieval in elementary school children. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 198-206.

  BACKGROUND

• Knouse, L. E., Rawson, K. A., Vaughn, K. E., & Dunlosky, J. (2016). Does Testing Improve Learning for college students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Clinical Psychological Science, 4(1), 136-143.

  BACKGROUND

• Kyle FE, Harris M. Longitudinal patterns of emerging literacy in beginning deaf and hearing readers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2011 Summer;16(3):289-304. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq069. Epub 2011 Feb 9.

  PMID: 21307357 BACKGROUND

• Leonard LB, Deevy P, Karpicke JD, Christ S, Weber C, Kueser JB, Haebig E. Adjective Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder: A Retrieval-Based Approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Dec 5;62(12):4433-4449. doi: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-19-0221. Print 2019 Dec 18.

  PMID: 31805241 BACKGROUND

• Leonard LB, Karpicke J, Deevy P, Weber C, Christ S, Haebig E, Souto S, Kueser JB, Krok W. Retrieval-Based Word Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder I: The Benefits of Repeated Retrieval. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Apr 15;62(4):932-943. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0070.

  PMID: 30986142 BACKGROUND

• Lipowski SL, Pyc MA, Dunlosky J, Rawson KA. Establishing and explaining the testing effect in free recall for young children. Dev Psychol. 2014 Apr;50(4):994-1000. doi: 10.1037/a0035202. Epub 2013 Dec 2.

  PMID: 24294884 BACKGROUND

• Luckner JL, Cooke C. A summary of the vocabulary research with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Am Ann Deaf. 2010 Spring;155(1):38-67. doi: 10.1353/aad.0.0129.

  PMID: 20503907 BACKGROUND

• Lund E. Vocabulary Knowledge of Children With Cochlear Implants: A Meta-Analysis. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2016 Apr;21(2):107-21. doi: 10.1093/deafed/env060. Epub 2015 Dec 27.

  PMID: 26712811 BACKGROUND

• Lund E, Miller C, Douglas WM, Werfel K. Teaching Vocabulary to Improve Print Knowledge in Preschool Children with Hearing Loss. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2020 Dec;5(6):1366-1379. doi: 10.1044/2020_persp-20-00023. Epub 2020 Aug 17.

  PMID: 33981844 BACKGROUND

• Marsh EJ, Fazio LK, Goswick AE. Memorial consequences of testing school-aged children. Memory. 2012;20(8):899-906. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2012.708757. Epub 2012 Aug 15.

  PMID: 22891857 BACKGROUND

• McDaniel J, Benitez-Barrera CR, Soares AC, Vargas A, Camarata S. Bilingual Versus Monolingual Vocabulary Instruction for Bilingual Children with Hearing Loss. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2019 Apr 1;24(2):142-160. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eny042.

  PMID: 30597033 BACKGROUND

• McDaniel J, Camarata S, Yoder P. Comparing Auditory-Only and Audiovisual Word Learning for Children With Hearing Loss. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2018 Oct 1;23(4):382-398. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eny016.

  PMID: 29767759 BACKGROUND

• McGregor KK, Gordon K, Eden N, Arbisi-Kelm T, Oleson J. Encoding Deficits Impede Word Learning and Memory in Adults With Developmental Language Disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 Oct 17;60(10):2891-2905. doi: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17-0031.

  PMID: 28980007 BACKGROUND

• Nittrouer S, Lowenstein JH, Antonelli J. Parental Language Input to Children With Hearing Loss: Does It Matter in the End? J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Dec 13;63(1):234-258. doi: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00123. Print 2020 Jan 22.

  PMID: 31834998 BACKGROUND

• Qi S, Mitchell RE. Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: past, present, and future. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2012 Winter;17(1):1-18. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enr028. Epub 2011 Jun 28.

  PMID: 21712463 BACKGROUND

• Reimer CK, Grantham H, Butler AC. The effect of retrieval practice on vocabulary learning for DHH children. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2024 Jun 24;29(3):377-387. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enae005.

  PMID: 38330211 BACKGROUND

• Roberts MY. Parent-Implemented Communication Treatment for Infants and Toddlers With Hearing Loss: A Randomized Pilot Trial. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Jan 30;62(1):143-152. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0079.

  PMID: 30535174 BACKGROUND

• Ruben RJ. Language development in the pediatric cochlear implant patient. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2018 Apr 19;3(3):209-213. doi: 10.1002/lio2.156. eCollection 2018 Jun.

  PMID: 30062136 BACKGROUND

• Werfel KL. Emergent Literacy Skills in Preschool Children With Hearing Loss Who Use Spoken Language: Initial Findings From the Early Language and Literacy Acquisition (ELLA) Study. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2017 Oct 5;48(4):249-259. doi: 10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0023.

  PMID: 28973172 BACKGROUND

• Lehman M, Smith MA, Karpicke JD. Toward an episodic context account of retrieval-based learning: dissociating retrieval practice and elaboration. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 Nov;40(6):1787-94. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000012. Epub 2014 May 5.

  PMID: 24797442 BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Hearing Loss; Language Disorders

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Hearing Disorders; Ear Diseases; Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases; Sensation Disorders; Neurologic Manifestations; Nervous System Diseases; Signs and Symptoms; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms; Communication Disorders; Neurobehavioral Manifestations

Results Point of Contact

• Title: Jena McDaniel
• Organization: Vanderbilt University Medical Center

jena.mcdaniel@vumc.org

615-936-5114

Publication Agreements

• PI is Sponsor Employee: Yes

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Assistant Professor

Model Details: Adapted alternating treatments research design with 3 conditions per participant. Four participants are randomly assigned to each contrast (arm).

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: August 11, 2022
• First Posted: August 23, 2022
• Study Start: February 5, 2023
• Primary Completion: July 11, 2025
• Study Completion: July 11, 2025
• Last Updated: March 16, 2026
• Results First Posted: March 16, 2026

Record last verified: 2025-08

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF
• Time Frame: Data will become available when manuscripts are published.
• Access Criteria: Data will become available through the published manuscript(s).

Locations

US (1)