Hearing LossNCT05512000
Retrieval Practice for Word Learning for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children
A study testing Feedback with massed trials, Feedback with spaced trials and No feedback with massed trials in people with Hearing Loss and Language Impairment, run by Vanderbilt University Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial 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). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 5 to 9 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Hearing Loss, Language Impairment
- What is being tested?
- Feedback with massed trials, Feedback with spaced trials and No feedback with massed trials
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 13 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 5 Feb 2023to 11 Jul 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 5 to 9 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- At least minimal prelingual hearing loss
- Standard scores of at least 70 for receptive and expressive vocabulary skills
- English is only spoken language
Who cannot join
- Below average nonverbal cognition
- Uncorrected vision impairment
- Evidence of severe motor impairment
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Nashville, Tennessee, 37232
About this study
Official title: Increasing Word Learning Efficiency in Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing Through Retrieval Practice
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.
Read the detailed description
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.
- Conditions
- Hearing Loss, Language Impairment
- Being tested
- Feedback with massed trials, Feedback with spaced trials, No feedback with massed trials, No feedback with spaced trials
- Medical subject headings
- Hearing Loss, Language Disorders
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Feedback with massed trialsBehavioural
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.
Feedback with spaced trialsBehavioural
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.
No feedback with massed trialsBehavioural
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.
No feedback with spaced trialsBehavioural
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Contrast A | Experimental | Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials Receives: Behavioral: Feedback with massed trials; Behavioral: No feedback with massed trials |
| Contrast B | Experimental | Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials Receives: Behavioral: Feedback with spaced trials; Behavioral: No feedback with spaced trials |
| Contrast C | Experimental | Spaced vs massed trials without feedback Receives: Behavioral: No feedback with massed trials; Behavioral: No feedback with spaced trials |
| Contrast D | Experimental | Spaced vs massed trials with feedback Receives: Behavioral: Feedback with massed trials; Behavioral: Feedback with spaced trials |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Secondary outcomes (8)
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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Aug 2022
- Study start5 Feb 2023
- Primary completion11 Jul 2025
- Study completion11 Jul 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (37)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Hearing LossStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Vanderbilt University Medical CenterThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Adapted alternating treatments research design with 3 conditions per participant. Four participants are randomly assigned to each contrast (arm).
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 13 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Jena McDaniel, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05512000
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 221773
- Status last verified
- Aug 2025
- First submitted
- 11 Aug 2022
- Last updated
- 16 Mar 2026
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Graphs with individual data points will be reported in manuscripts that share the primary study findings. Sharing of such graphical data will permit inclusion of the project's results in future meta-analyses.
Publications
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.
PubMed 32052022Bjork, 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.
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the. Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing, 185.
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.
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.
PubMed 23584181Brennan-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.
PubMed 24619508Carpenter 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.
PubMed 19857026Carpenter, S. K., & Yeung, K. L. (2017). The role of mediator strength in learning from retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 128-141.
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.
PubMed 25312580Fritz 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.
PubMed 17616915Geers 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.
PubMed 28759398Geers 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.
PubMed 21832889Goossens, 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.
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.
PubMed 30986145Jones, 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.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Mar 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Increasing Word Learning Efficiency in Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing Through Retrieval Practice
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05512000
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 221773
- Conditions
- Hearing Loss, Language Impairment
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 13 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Vanderbilt University Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 5 Feb 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 11 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 11 Jul 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Aug 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 16 Mar 2026
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
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 design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
- Model description
- Adapted alternating treatments research design with 3 conditions per participant. Four participants are randomly assigned to each contrast (arm).
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Contrast A | Experimental | Behavioral: Feedback with massed trials, Behavioral: No feedback with massed trialsFeedback vs no feedback with massed trials |
| Contrast B | Experimental | Behavioral: Feedback with spaced trials, Behavioral: No feedback with spaced trialsFeedback vs no feedback with spaced trials |
| Contrast C | Experimental | Behavioral: No feedback with massed trials, Behavioral: No feedback with spaced trialsSpaced vs massed trials without feedback |
| Contrast D | Experimental | Behavioral: Feedback with massed trials, Behavioral: Feedback with spaced trialsSpaced vs massed trials with feedback |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 5 to 9 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- At least minimal prelingual hearing loss
- Standard scores of at least 70 for receptive and expressive vocabulary skills
- English is only spoken language
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Below average nonverbal cognition
- Uncorrected vision impairment
- Evidence of severe motor impairment
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Feedback with massed trialsThe 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. | Behavioural | Contrast A, Contrast D |
| Feedback with spaced trialsThe 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. | Behavioural | Contrast B, Contrast D |
| No feedback with massed trialsThe 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. | Behavioural | Contrast A, Contrast C |
| No feedback with spaced trialsThe 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. | Behavioural | Contrast B, Contrast C |
Primary outcome
Labeling - Acquisition Effectiveness
Time frame: End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).
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.
Labeling - Acquisition Efficiency
Time frame: End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).
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.
Labeling - Retention Effectiveness
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
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.
Labeling - Retention Efficiency
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
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.
8 secondary outcomes
Identifying - Acquisition Effectiveness
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
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
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
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
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Identifying - Retention Efficiency
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Semantic - Retention Effectiveness
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Semantic - Retention Efficiency
Time frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Mar 2026.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 32052022Antia 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.
- BackgroundBjork, 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.
- BackgroundBjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the. Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing, 185.
- BackgroundBobzien, 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: PubMed 23584181Boons 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.
- Background: PubMed 24619508Brennan-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.
- Background: PubMed 19857026Carpenter 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.
- BackgroundCarpenter, S. K., & Yeung, K. L. (2017). The role of mediator strength in learning from retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 128-141.
- Background: PubMed 25312580Coyne 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.
- Background: PubMed 17616915Fritz 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.
- Background: PubMed 28759398Geers 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.
- Background: PubMed 21832889Geers 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Graphs with individual data points will be reported in manuscripts that share the primary study findings. Sharing of such graphical data will permit inclusion of the project's results in future meta-analyses.
Related trials for Hearing Loss
Not yet recruiting
Automated Text Message Reminders to Promote Hearing Aid Adoption
Hearing Loss
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Post-Market Registry Study for Vibrant Hearing Solutions
Conductive Hearing Loss, Mixed Hearing Loss
Recruiting
Investigating Auditory Processing in the Users of Auditory Brainstem and Cochlear Implants
Deafness
RecruitingObservational study
Collection of Clinical Data and Specimens for Research in Hearing, Balance, Taste, Smell, Voice, Speech, and Language Disorders.
Hearing Loss, Deafness
RecruitingObservational study
Rare Disease Patient Registry & Natural History Study - Coordination of Rare Diseases at Sanford
Rare Disorders, Undiagnosed Disorders
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Feedback with massed trials, Feedback with spaced trials and No feedback with massed trials in people with Hearing Loss and Language Impairment, run by Vanderbilt University Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Mar 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 16 Mar 2026). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Labeling - Acquisition Effectiveness (time frame: End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05512000, which also lists 37 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Mar 2026.