An interventional study of Role of Knowledge Retrieval and Inference Intervention in Reading Disability and Reading Problem, sponsored by William Jewell College. Recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 8 Years to 14 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-06-23.
Sponsored by William Jewell College · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
This project will (a) examine the relationship between knowledge retrieval and inferencing; (b) determine the effectiveness of an intervention that improves knowledge retrieval and inferencing among struggling readers; and (c) expand research opportunities for undergraduates. The research design uses 316 struggling readers in grades 4-6 of diverse backgrounds. The effects of knowledge retrieval (accuracy and speed) on inferencing will be modeled without dichotomizing the distribution. Linear mixed effect models will be fit to determine whether reader characteristics make unique contributions to inferencing across the posttest and follow-up data collection time points. First, several structural models will be considered as students may be nested in teachers, schools, and tutors. Unconditional models will estimate the intraclass correlation for each level of the study design. If significant interclass correlations emerge, multilevel models will be fit to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention while controlling for covariates such as pre-test performance on inference-related measures and child-attributes such as English learner status. The primary analysis plan assumes an intent-to-treat model in which the efficacy of two intact conditions will be tested. Effect sizes will be estimated to report the magnitude of difference between the two conditions. Expected outcomes include (a) the identification of a method that effectively facilitates knowledge retrieval and the application of relevant knowledge to form inferences among elementary struggling readers from diverse backgrounds; (b) the validation of an intervention that teaches struggling readers how to activate, retrieve, and interweave relevant knowledge with information in the text and accurately form inferences while reading that can be broadly implemented in general education classrooms; and (c) expansion of undergraduate research opportunities, particularly among students from diverse backgrounds who have been historically underserved.
Theory and research suggest that inferencing serves as a critical aspect of comprehension and that inferencing fails when readers do not possess sufficient background knowledge or slowly retrieve and integrate knowledge from memory or text when reading. Research suggests that readers fluently retrieve and use knowledge that is well-connected to form inferences while reading. Further, inferencing among skilled comprehenders depends considerably on knowledge retrieval, thus implicating the important role knowledge plays in inferencing. Yet, very little research has examined how inferencing changes as a function of changes in knowledge. Understanding how inferencing adapts as a function of knowledge acquisition and knowledge use provides a necessary mechanism for refining how to improve this learning process, especially for older students with reading comprehension difficulties. This project fills this critical need. This project's goal is to determine if knowledge retrieval is a mechanism for improving inferencing among middle grade struggling readers attending rural schools. The central hypothesis is that knowledge is malleable, with fluent retrieval of relevant knowledge associated with improved inferencing. This hypothesis will be tested with the objective to evaluate knowledge retrieval methods and then test the effectiveness of an intervention that facilitates knowledge retrieval and inferencing among middle grade struggling readers attending rural schools. This proposal is scientifically important because it informs theory by determining whether fluent retrieval of relevant knowledge enables inferencing among struggling readers. It is practically important because it identifies the learning strategies struggling readers need to retrieve knowledge to make inferences. The rural context also becomes critically important here. Long-standing disparities in educational access exist for students of minority backgrounds, English-learners, and children at risk for learning disabilities who attend rural schools. However, fully powered randomized control trials rarely occur in rural settings and existing literature of studies in rural schools commonly contains methodological limitations. These gaps in the literature will be addressed through the following Aims.
Aim 1: Evaluate the relationship between knowledge retrieval and inferencing. This Aim will examine whether retrieval practice - a powerful and proven technique for enhancing knowledge retrieval, inferencing, and transfer among skilled adult readers - also improves knowledge retrieval and inferencing among rural, middle grade, struggling readers. Past research conducted in the middle grades shows that retrieval practice is associated with improved end-of-unit performance in content area classrooms. But no study has examined how, why, when, and for whom knowledge retrieval works and under what conditions for struggling readers. The primary hypothesis is that fluent retrieval of relevant knowledge facilitates inferencing. The expected outcome is the identification of a method that effectively facilitates knowledge retrieval and the application of relevant knowledge to form inferences among rural, middle grade, struggling readers.
Aim 2: Determine the effectiveness of an intervention that improves knowledge retrieval and inferencing. No intervention study has used knowledge retrieval techniques to help struggling readers retain new knowledge or retrieve and use relevant knowledge to form inferences while reading. The primary hypothesis is that changes in inferencing are associated with changes in knowledge retrieval; however, knowledge retrieval and inferencing must be explicitly taught and sufficiently practiced for inferencing to occur with the same regularity as skilled comprehenders use it. The expected outcome is the validation of an intervention that teaches rural, struggling middle grade readers how to activate, retrieve, and interweave relevant knowledge with information in the text to accurately form inferences while reading. Furthermore, very few reading intervention studies have occurred with middle grade struggling readers attending rural schools. The rural setting is important; existing practices do not consider the cumulative effects of rural poverty on general knowledge development and reading achievement or the long-term impact of limited access to academic support services. Additionally, only one inference intervention study has included English Learners. The English Learner population has increased substantially in rural communities, but past research shows that generalizing vocabulary and knowledge building interventions designed for monolinguals have not proven effective.
Aim 3. To expand undergraduate research opportunities by integrating undergraduate students on the research team with the knowledge and skills to successfully implement these randomized controlled trials.
127 studies on the registry are indexed under Dyslexia; 27 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 316 is above the median of 71 across 106 interventional studies indexed under Dyslexia.
Browse Dyslexia studies →This is the only study on the registry with William Jewell College as lead sponsor.
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:
Students will be taught a knowledge base comprised of 18 facts about Egypt. After learning the knowledge base to criterion, students will practice retrieving the knowledge base across four testing sessions spaced 24 hours apart. Students will receive different questions across testing sessions. Next, students will read 6 passages about Egypt and then answer literal and inferential questions about the passages. Immediately after reading the passages, students will get re-tested on their retention of the knowledge base and use of the knowledge base to form inferences. They will also get retested one week and one month later to examine students' long-term retention of the knowledge base and use to make inferences.
Behavioral: Role of Knowledge Retrieval · Behavioral: Inference Intervention
Students will be taught a knowledge base comprised of 18 facts about Egypt. After learning the knowledge base to criterion, students will practice retrieving the knowledge base across four testing sessions spaced 24 hours apart. Students will receive the same questions repeated across testing sessions. Next, students will read 6 passages about Egypt and then answer literal and inferential questions about the passages. Immediately after reading the passages, students will get re-tested on their retention of the knowledge base and use of the knowledge base to form inferences. They will also get retested one week and one month later to examine students' long-term retention of the knowledge base and use to make inferences.
Behavioral: Role of Knowledge Retrieval · Behavioral: Inference Intervention
Students will be taught a knowledge base comprised of 18 facts about Egypt. After learning the knowledge base to criterion, students will re-read the passages. They will not receive any questions. Next, students will read 6 passages about Egypt and then answer literal and inferential questions about the passages. Immediately after reading the passages, students will get re-tested on their retention of the knowledge base and use of the knowledge base to form inferences. They will also get retested one week and one month later to examine students' long-term retention of the knowledge base and use to make inferences.
Behavioral: Role of Knowledge Retrieval · Behavioral: Inference Intervention
Students will learn a new knowledge base to perfect mastery. Following the attainment of mastery students will read passages on the topic and answer questions that prompt the literal recall of key facts and the formation of inferences.
The intervention will pre-teach students a set of 20 essential facts about Egypt. Students will interact with expository and narrative texts. Students will practice using a text clue strategy to activate and integrate prior knowledge, will make in-text connections, connections across the 3 intervention texts, and connections between text and knowledge, and will make inferences about character motives and author intent. The tutor will ask students to justify connections and evaluate how these connections enhance understanding. Students will answer inference questions that require using text and background knowledge. A simple graphic organizer will support and scaffold inferencing. Throughout the intervention, students will practice retrieving the 20 essential facts about Egypt from memory using flash cards, completed in pairs with students providing each other feedback.
Gates-MacGinite Reading Test-4th Edition; Change is being assessed
a standardized, group-administered, multiple-choice assessment of reading comprehension.
Time frame: pre-intervention
Gates-MacGinite Reading Test-4th Edition; change is being assessed
a standardized, group-administered, multiple-choice assessment of reading comprehension
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Test of Language Competence-Expanded; Change is being assessed
Inference Task asks students to read three sentences and form an inference
Time frame: pre-intervention
Test of Language Competence-Expanded; change is being assessed
Inference Task asks students to read three sentences and form an inference
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Bridge-IT; change is being assessed
asks students to read a five-sentence text, form an inference, and determine if the next sentence provided continues the story.
Time frame: pre-intervention
Bridge-IT; change is being assessed
asks students to read a five-sentence text, form an inference, and determine if the next sentence provided continues the story.
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5; change is being assessed
Metalinguistics, Making Inferences subtest, an individually administered assessment, measures students' ability to make gap-filling inferences on the basis of causal relationships or event chains depicted in short narratives that are presented both orally and in print form.
Time frame: pre-intervention
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5; change is being assessed
Metalinguistics, Making Inferences subtest, an individually administered assessment, measures students' ability to make gap-filling inferences on the basis of causal relationships or event chains depicted in short narratives that are presented both orally and in print form.
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Knowledge Retrieval; change is being assessed
It teaches new knowledge then measures the accuracy and efficiency by which the individual can retrieve that knowledge. After learning the knowledge base, students read passages and form inferences with the accuracy and efficiency of inferencing measured.
Time frame: pre-intervention
Knowledge Retrieval; change is being assessed
It teaches new knowledge then measures the accuracy and efficiency by which the individual can retrieve that knowledge. After learning the knowledge base, students read passages and form inferences with the accuracy and efficiency of inferencing measured.
Time frame: Immediately after the intervention
Knowledge Retrieval; change is being assessed
It teaches new knowledge then measures the accuracy and efficiency by which the individual can retrieve that knowledge. After learning the knowledge base, students read passages and form inferences with the accuracy and efficiency of inferencing measured.
Time frame: one-week after the intervention
Knowledge Retrieval; change is being assessed
It teaches new knowledge then measures the accuracy and efficiency by which the individual can retrieve that knowledge. After learning the knowledge base, students read passages and form inferences with the accuracy and efficiency of inferencing measured.
Time frame: one-month after the intervention
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-2; change is being assessed
Sight Word Efficiency, a 45-second assessment of students' word reading accuracy and speed and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency, a 45-second assessment of students' non-word reading accuracy and speed.
Time frame: pre-intervention
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-2; change is being assessed
Sight Word Efficiency, a 45-second assessment of students' word reading accuracy and speed and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency, a 45-second assessment of students' non-word reading accuracy and speed.
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Metacognition survey; change is being assessed
asks students to report study strategies used when learning from text and includes questions about repeated studying and retrieval practice.
Time frame: pre-intervention
Metacognition survey; change is being assessed
asks students to report study strategies used when learning from text and includes questions about repeated studying and retrieval practice.
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Contextualized Reading Strategy Survey; change is being assessed
49-item self-report survey designed to assess a collection of learning and comprehension strategies that students might use when reading for school.
Time frame: pre-intervention
Contextualized Reading Strategy Survey; change is being assessed
49-item self-report survey designed to assess a collection of learning and comprehension strategies that students might use when reading for school.
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Working Memory Test Battery for Children
Word List Recall that asks the student to repeat a list of monosyllabic words, Non-word List Recall that asks the student to repeat a list of non-words and Listening Recall Test that requires that the student listen to a series of short sentences, judge their accuracy, and recall the final word of each sentence.
Time frame: pre-intervention
Kauffman Brief Intelligence Test-2
Verbal Knowledge subtest, a norm-referenced, individually administered assessment of expressive word and world knowledge
Time frame: pre-intervention
Gates-MacGinitie Vocabulary Test; change is being assessed
group administered test of receptive vocabulary
Time frame: pre-intervention
Gates-MacGinitie Vocabulary Test; change is being assessed
group administered test of receptive vocabulary
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Egyptian Content Knowledge; change is being assessed
a researcher developed assessment of one's knowledge of Egypt
Time frame: pre-intervention
Egyptian Content Knowledge; change is being assessed
a researcher developed assessment of one's knowledge of Egypt
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension; change is being assessed
measure of silent reading fluency and understanding of text
Time frame: pre-intervention
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension; change is being assessed
measure of silent reading fluency and understanding of text
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency; change is being assessed
measures of silent reading fluency and understanding of text
Time frame: pre-intervention
Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency; change is being assessed
measures of silent reading fluency and understanding of text
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
CBM-Maze Task; change is being assessed
measure of silent reading fluency and understanding of text
Time frame: pre-intervention
CBM-Maze Task; change is being assessed
measure of silent reading fluency and understanding of text
Time frame: immediately after the intervention
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension
measure of silent reading fluency and understanding of text
Time frame: baseline screening of participants; pre-intervention
PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.
Plan to share: Yes — The following steps will be enacted: (a) requester will submit an email to the PI requesting data sharing; (b) A data-sharing agreement will be forwarded to the requester by the laboratory manager; (c) once the data-Sharing agreement is returned, a file will be prepared for the requester. This file will be prepared by PI or the laboratory manager; (d) files will be shared via secure data archive. Our data archives are secure and approved for use with Category I data.
Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan
Time frame: Data will become available at the close of the project.
Access criteria: Data will be available upon request. A data-sharing agreement will be required prior to release of data. The agreement will include a summary of the purpose of the data, methodology and procedures used to the collected the data, timing of the data use. The agreement will also state that privacy and confidentiality standards will be maintained and that manipulation of data for the purposes of identifying subjects is prohibited.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet 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.