Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31336055›Full record

Trial reportJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2019

Computerized Speechreading Training for Deaf Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Hannah Pimperton, Fiona Kyle, Charles Hulme, Margaret Harris, Indie Beedie, Amelia Ralph-Lewis, Elizabeth Worster, Rachel Rees, Chris Donlan, Mairéad MacSweeney

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hannah PimpertonInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, United Kingdom.
Fiona KyleDivision of Language and Communication Science, City University of London, United Kingdom.
Charles HulmeDepartment of Education, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Margaret HarrisFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
Indie BeedieInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, United Kingdom.
Amelia Ralph-LewisInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth WorsterInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, United Kingdom.
Rachel ReesDepartment of Language and Cognition, University College London, United Kingdom.
Chris DonlanDepartment of Language and Cognition, University College London, United Kingdom.
Mairéad MacSweeneyInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 100229/Z/12/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose We developed and evaluated in a randomized controlled trial a computerized speechreading training program to determine (a) whether it is possible to train speechreading in deaf children and (b) whether speechreading training results in improvements in phonological and reading skills. Previous studies indicate a relationship between speechreading and reading skill and further suggest this relationship may be mediated by improved phonological representations. This is important since many deaf children find learning to read to be very challenging. Method Sixty-six deaf 5- to 7-year-olds were randomized into speechreading and maths training arms. Each training program was composed of a 10-min sessions a day, 4 days a week for 12 weeks. Children were assessed on a battery of language and literacy measures before training, immediately after training, and 3 months and 11 months after training. Results We found no significant benefits for participants who completed the speechreading training, compared to those who completed the maths training, on the speechreading primary outcome measure. However, significantly greater gains were observed in the speechreading training group on one of the secondary measures of speechreading. There was also some evidence of beneficial effects of the speechreading training on phonological representations; however, these effects were weaker. No benefits were seen to word reading. Conclusions Speechreading skill is trainable in deaf children. However, to support early reading, training may need to be longer or embedded in a broader literacy program. Nevertheless, a training tool that can improve speechreading is likely to be of great interest to professionals working with deaf children. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8856356.

Indexed as

Child LanguageLipreadingChildChild, PreschoolCommunication Devices for People with DisabilitiesComputer-Assisted InstructionDeafnessFemaleHumansLanguage TestsLiteracyMalePatient Education as TopicPhoneticsReading

Identifiers

PMID31336055
PMCPMC6839416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.