CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03441685Updated Jun 7, 2024Results posted

Strategies for Teaching Verbs

An interventional study of Semantic cues (perform action), syntactic cues (sentence frame), or combined semantic and syntactic cues in Language Development Disorders, Down Syndrome and Child Language, sponsored by Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 3 Years to 17 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-06-07.

Sponsored by Vanderbilt University Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
44
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
3 Years to 17 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This study is designed to evaluate whether children with Down syndrome and children with typical development exhibit different levels of accuracy demonstrating novel verbs taught under three conditions: semantic cues (perform action), syntactic cues (sentence frame), and combined (syntactic and semantic cues). The participants complete an eligibility evaluation and then one verb learning session (approximately 60 minutes in length). During that verb learning session they are taught sets of words under each condition (i.e., within-subjects design) and then asked to identify and label those target words immediately after instruction.

02

Conditions studied

  • Language Development Disorders
  • Down Syndrome
  • Child Language
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
3 Years to 17 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Must use oral communication as their primary means of communication
  • Must be monolingual English speakers
  • Behaviorally able to attend for 20 minutes
  • Children with typical development must demonstrate no more than one standard deviation below the mean on the speech and language measures

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Nonverbal cognitive score less than three standard deviations below the mean (standard score of 54 below)
  • Identified hearing loss or failed hearing screening
  • Uncorrected vision impairment
  • Motor impairment that prevents completion of study activities
  • Concomitant disorders (e.g., Autism spectrum disorder)
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
44 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Verb strategies

    The examiner labels each target word and performs the corresponding action six times in each condition. She elicits the target word from the participant two times per word per condition and provides feedback on accuracy each time. In the semantic cues condition, the examiner prompts the child to perform the target action twice. In the syntactic cues condition, instead of only saying the target word with the present progressive verb marker, the examiner uses two forms of complete sentences while performing the action (i.e., "I am X-ing," and "See. I X."). In the combined condition, the examiner prompts the child to perform the target action and consistently uses complete sentences.

    Behavioral: Semantic cues (perform action), syntactic cues (sentence frame), or combined semantic and syntactic cues

Interventions

  • BehavioralSemantic cues (perform action), syntactic cues (sentence frame), or combined semantic and syntactic cues

    Verb Learning Session Teaching phase. The examiner labels each target word and performs the action 6 times in each condition. She elicits the target word from the participant 2 times per word per condition and provides feedback on accuracy. Testing phase. Receptive probes are administered after every 2 words are taught. Expressive probes are at the end of the condition. For receptive probes, the examiner asks the participant to identify novel verbs and for expressive probes, the examiner asks the child to label the novel action. Testing after 2 items is designed to decrease memory load. Participants have a brief break between conditions. Data are collected on: a) child responses on standardized assessments, (b) responses to verb learning probes, (c) parent responses to intake form, and (d) relevant medical history from electronic medical record. None of the above procedures present more than minimal risk to participants or research staff. Vanderbilt IRB approved all procedures.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Accuracy Identifying Taught Words - Syntactic Condition

    Participants are asked to receptively identify novel verbs taught in syntactic condition by selecting the video of the named verb from a field of two. Participants were asked to identify each of the 4 taught words per condition 3 times for a total of 12 trials per condition. This "receptive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 12. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Time frame: From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month

  2. Accuracy Identifying Taught Words - Semantic Condition

    Participants are asked to receptively identify novel verbs taught in semantic condition by selecting the video of the named verb from a field of two. Participants were asked to identify each of the 4 taught words per condition 3 times for a total of 12 trials per condition. This "receptive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 12. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Time frame: From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month

  3. Accuracy Identifying Taught Words - Combined Condition

    Participants are asked to receptively identify novel verbs taught in combined condition by selecting the video of the named verb from a field of two. Participants were asked to identify each of the 4 taught words per condition 3 times for a total of 12 trials per condition. This "receptive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 12. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Time frame: From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month

Secondary outcomes

  1. Accuracy Labeling Taught Words - Syntactic Condition

    After the teaching episodes for the syntactic condition participants are asked to label novel verbs expressively. Participants were asked to label each of the 4 taught words per condition one time for a total of 4 trials per condition. This "expressive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 4. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Time frame: From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month

  2. Accuracy Labeling Taught Words - Semantic Condition

    After the teaching episodes for the semantic condition participants are asked to label novel verbs expressively. Participants were asked to label each of the 4 taught words per condition one time for a total of 4 trials per condition. This "expressive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 4. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Time frame: From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month

  3. Accuracy Labeling Taught Words - Combined Condition

    After the teaching episodes for the combined condition participants are asked to label novel verbs expressively. Participants were asked to label each of the 4 taught words per condition one time for a total of 4 trials per condition. This "expressive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 4. Higher scores indicate a better outcome

    Time frame: From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month

06

Results

Posted Jun 7, 2024

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneTypical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language Disorder
Started2387
Completed2387
Not completed000

Outcome measures

PrimaryAccuracy Identifying Taught Words - Syntactic Condition

Participants are asked to receptively identify novel verbs taught in syntactic condition by selecting the video of the named verb from a field of two. Participants were asked to identify each of the 4 taught words per condition 3 times for a total of 12 trials per condition. This "receptive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 12. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

Time frame:
From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month
Reported as:
Mean · Score on a scale
Accuracy Identifying Taught Words - Syntactic Condition
Score on a scaleTypical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language Disorder
Accuracy Identifying Taught Words - Syntactic Condition8.73 ± 3.268.75 ± 3.1110.29 ± 2.21
Statistical analysis
  • Typical Development · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.73 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.69 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.79 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Typical Development · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.002 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.049 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.016 (Asymptotic p-value)
PrimaryAccuracy Identifying Taught Words - Semantic Condition

Participants are asked to receptively identify novel verbs taught in semantic condition by selecting the video of the named verb from a field of two. Participants were asked to identify each of the 4 taught words per condition 3 times for a total of 12 trials per condition. This "receptive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 12. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

Time frame:
From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month
Reported as:
Mean · Score on a scale
Accuracy Identifying Taught Words - Semantic Condition
Score on a scaleTypical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language Disorder
Accuracy Identifying Taught Words - Semantic Condition8.91 ± 3.549.50 ± 2.9310.14 ± 2.67
Statistical analysis
  • Typical Development · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.76 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.79 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 1.00 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Typical Development · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.003 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.029 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.027 (Asymptotic p-value)
PrimaryAccuracy Identifying Taught Words - Combined Condition

Participants are asked to receptively identify novel verbs taught in combined condition by selecting the video of the named verb from a field of two. Participants were asked to identify each of the 4 taught words per condition 3 times for a total of 12 trials per condition. This "receptive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 12. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

Time frame:
From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month
Reported as:
Mean · Score on a scale
Accuracy Identifying Taught Words - Combined Condition
Score on a scaleTypical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language Disorder
Accuracy Identifying Taught Words - Combined Condition9.04 ± 2.759.38 ± 2.0710.00 ± 2.24
Statistical analysis
  • Typical Development · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.72 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.46 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.89 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Typical Development · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = <.001 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.018 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.027 (Asymptotic p-value)
SecondaryAccuracy Labeling Taught Words - Syntactic Condition

After the teaching episodes for the syntactic condition participants are asked to label novel verbs expressively. Participants were asked to label each of the 4 taught words per condition one time for a total of 4 trials per condition. This "expressive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 4. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

Time frame:
From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month
Reported as:
Mean · Score on a scale
Accuracy Labeling Taught Words - Syntactic Condition
Score on a scaleTypical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language Disorder
Accuracy Labeling Taught Words - Syntactic Condition0.61 ± 0.580.75 ± 0.710.86 ± 0.90
Statistical analysis
  • Typical Development · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.64 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.16 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.18 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Typical Development · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = <.001 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.034 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.063 (Asymptotic p-value)
SecondaryAccuracy Labeling Taught Words - Semantic Condition

After the teaching episodes for the semantic condition participants are asked to label novel verbs expressively. Participants were asked to label each of the 4 taught words per condition one time for a total of 4 trials per condition. This "expressive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 4. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

Time frame:
From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month
Reported as:
Mean · Score on a scale
Accuracy Labeling Taught Words - Semantic Condition
Score on a scaleTypical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language Disorder
Accuracy Labeling Taught Words - Semantic Condition0.52 ± 0.731.00 ± 0.930.43 ± 0.79
Statistical analysis
  • Typical Development · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.35 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.18 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.58
  • Typical Development · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.006 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.02 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.18 (Asymptotic p-value)
SecondaryAccuracy Labeling Taught Words - Combined Condition

After the teaching episodes for the combined condition participants are asked to label novel verbs expressively. Participants were asked to label each of the 4 taught words per condition one time for a total of 4 trials per condition. This "expressive probe" has a minimum score of 0 and maximum of 4. Higher scores indicate a better outcome

Time frame:
From date of initial evaluation to focused intervention session, up to 1 month
Reported as:
Mean · Score on a scale
Accuracy Labeling Taught Words - Combined Condition
Score on a scaleTypical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language Disorder
Accuracy Labeling Taught Words - Combined Condition0.70 ± 0.631.38 ± 1.410.71 ± 1.11
Statistical analysis
  • Typical Development · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.56 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.10 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test · p = 0.71 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Typical Development · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = <.001 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Down Syndrome · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.024 (Asymptotic p-value)
  • Developmental Language Disorder · One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test · p = 0.10 (Asymptotic p-value)

Adverse events

Collected over Baseline to 30 days. Non-serious events are listed at a 1% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Typical Development0/23 (0%)0/23 (0%)0/23 (0%)
Down Syndrome0/8 (0%)0/8 (0%)0/8 (0%)
Developmental Language Disorder0/7 (0%)0/7 (0%)0/7 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Typical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language DisorderTotal
<=18 years238738
Between 18 and 65 years0000
>=65 years0000
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Typical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language DisorderTotal
Female136221
Male102517
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Typical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language DisorderTotal
Hispanic or Latino2035
Not Hispanic or Latino207431
Unknown or Not Reported1102
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Typical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language DisorderTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native0000
Asian0000
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0000
Black or African American0011
White178429
More than one race6006
Unknown or Not Reported0022
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Typical DevelopmentDown SyndromeDevelopmental Language DisorderTotal
United States238738
07

Study locations

1 site
  • Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center
    Nashville, Tennessee 37232, United States
08

References and documents

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Nov 23, 2020

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03441685
Lead sponsor
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Responsible party
Melanie Schuele (Associate Professor, Vanderbilt University Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Feb 22, 2018
Start date
Mar 21, 2018
Primary completion
Jul 2, 2021
Completion
Jul 2, 2021
Results posted
Jun 7, 2024
Last update
Jun 7, 2024

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion