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.
The proposed research addresses a long-standing and important challenge of improving language skills of children who are deaf and hard of hearing, a historically under researched group. The study aims to leverage retrieval practice - an empirically validated intervention approach - for improving how efficiently children who are deaf and hard of hearing learn and retain new words. To advance the promising yet underutilized research on retrieval practice, the study completes the next logical step of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of two key retrieval practice features: feedback and spacing. Feedback is predicted to result in more efficient learning because it focuses attention on unmastered material, prevents the illusion of success, and reduces repeated errors. Spacing trials are predicted to result in more efficient learning than massed trials because they require more effort with fewer cues provided. The study will accomplish these aims through four single case adapted alternating treatments design studies with 5- to 9- year-old children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Study innovations include the critical evaluation of retention and use of a multi-session intervention context. The knowledge gained will guide language intervention for children who are deaf and hard of hearing.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
13
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.
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.
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.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
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.
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Identifying - Acquisition Effectiveness
Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy identifying target words receptively (number of objects correctly identified when target word is named 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.
Time frame: 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
Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy identifying target words receptively (number of objects correctly identified when target word is named 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.
Time frame: 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
Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy labeling associated semantic information (i.e., location; number of target objects' locations correctly named 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.
Time frame: 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
Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy labeling associated semantic information (i.e., location; number of target objects' locations correctly named 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.
Time frame: 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
Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy identifying target words receptively (number of objects correctly identified when target word is named 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.
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Identifying - Retention Efficiency
Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy identifying target words receptively (number of objects correctly identified when target word is named 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.
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Semantic - Retention Effectiveness
Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy labeling associated semantic information (i.e., location; number of target objects' locations correctly named 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.
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Semantic - Retention Efficiency
Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on percent accuracy labeling associated semantic information (i.e., location; number of target objects' locations correctly named 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.
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends