An interventional study of Feedback with massed trials and Feedback with spaced trials in Hearing Loss and Language Impairment, sponsored by Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 5 Years to 9 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-03-16.
Sponsored by Vanderbilt University Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
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.
796 studies on the registry are indexed under Hearing Loss; 193 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 13 is below the median of 44 across 561 interventional studies indexed under Hearing Loss.
Browse Hearing Loss studies →Vanderbilt University Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 833 studies on the registry; 155 are open to participants now.
Of its 125 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 92 (74%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials
Behavioral: Feedback with massed trials · Behavioral: No feedback with massed trials
Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials
Behavioral: Feedback with spaced trials · Behavioral: No feedback with spaced trials
Spaced vs massed trials without feedback
Behavioral: No feedback with massed trials · Behavioral: No feedback with spaced trials
Spaced vs massed trials with feedback
Behavioral: Feedback with massed trials · Behavioral: Feedback with spaced trials
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.
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.
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.
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
| Milestone | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Started | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Completed | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Not completed | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labeling - Acquisition Effectiveness | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labeling - Acquisition Efficiency | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identifying - Acquisition Effectiveness | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identifying - Acquisition Efficiency | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semantic - Acquisition Effectiveness | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semantic - Acquisition Efficiency | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labeling - Retention Effectiveness | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labeling - Retention Efficiency | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identifying - Retention Effectiveness | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identifying - Retention Efficiency | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semantic - Retention Effectiveness | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
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.
| Participants | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semantic - Retention Efficiency | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Collected over From initial eligibility visit until end of follow-up, up to 8 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contrast A | 0/3 (0%) | 0/3 (0%) | 0/3 (0%) |
| Contrast B | 0/3 (0%) | 0/3 (0%) | 0/3 (0%) |
| Contrast C | 0/3 (0%) | 0/3 (0%) | 0/3 (0%) |
| Contrast D | 0/4 (0%) | 0/4 (0%) | 0/4 (0%) |
| Age, Categorical(Participants) | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <=18 years | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 13 |
| Between 18 and 65 years | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| >=65 years | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sex: Female, Male(Participants) | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 9 |
| Male | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants) | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asian | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Black or African American | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| White | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| More than one race | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Unknown or Not Reported | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Fifth Edition)(Scores on a scale) | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 88 ± 21 | 81 ± 9 | 97 ± 16 | 91 ± 15 | 89 ± 15 |
| Expressive Vocabulary Test (Third Edition)(Scores on a scale) | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 101 ± 23 | 86 ± 4 | 96 ± 17 | 88 ± 2 | 92 ± 13 |
| Test of Language Development (Fourth Edition)(Scores on a scale) | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 87 ± 28 | 81 ± 5 | 93 ± 15 | 79 ± 17 | 84 ± 17 |
| Arizona Articulation Phonology Test (Fourth Edition)(Scores on a scale) | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 90 ± 19 | 65 ± 13 | 94 ± 3 | 91 ± 15 | 85 ± 17 |
| Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Second Edition)(Scores on a scale) | Contrast A | Contrast B | Contrast C | Contrast D | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 88 ± 18 | 73 ± 10 | 86 ± 8 | 79 ± 12 | 81 ± 13 |
1 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.
PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.
Plan to share: 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.
Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form
Time frame: Data will become available when manuscripts are published.
Access criteria: Data will become available through the published manuscript(s).
This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center →