Trial Summary
What is the purpose of this trial?This study will use an experimental design to explore if articulatory gestures (with letters and phonemic awareness training) enhance early literacy skills more than general mouth awareness training (with letters and phonemic awareness training) or letter/phonemic awareness training alone.
What data supports the idea that Phonemic Segmentation for Early Literacy is an effective treatment?The available research shows that Phonemic Segmentation for Early Literacy is effective in improving reading skills. In one study, children with reading disabilities who received phonemic segmentation training significantly improved their ability to break down words into individual sounds, while those who did not receive training showed no improvement. Another study found that kindergarteners who received phoneme segmentation training outperformed those in control groups on reading readiness tests. Additionally, a study with first-graders at risk for reading failure demonstrated that phonemic decoding training led to substantial improvements in their ability to decode words. These findings suggest that phonemic segmentation training is beneficial for early reading development.12459
Do I have to stop taking my current medications for this trial?The trial protocol does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications.
Is Phonemic Segmentation a promising treatment for early literacy?Yes, Phonemic Segmentation is a promising treatment for early literacy. Research shows that training in phonemic segmentation helps improve reading readiness in young children and enhances reading skills in children with reading disabilities. It is beneficial for developing phonemic awareness, which is crucial for learning to read effectively.13789
What safety data exists for Phonemic Segmentation treatment?The provided research does not contain any safety data specific to Phonemic Segmentation, Phoneme Segmentation, or Phonemic Awareness Training. The studies focus on drug safety and adverse event reporting, which are unrelated to the treatment in question.610111213
Eligibility Criteria
This trial is for 4-year-old children who know at least 15 letter names, have normal hearing, pass a language screening test, and can only segment up to three simple words into sounds. They should not be able to read more than one word or nonword that will be used in the posttest.Inclusion Criteria
I can break down simple words into sounds.
Treatment Details
The study is testing if teaching kids how to make mouth movements (articulatory gestures) while learning letters and sounds improves early reading skills better than just general mouth training or only learning letters and sounds without any special mouth exercises.
3Treatment groups
Experimental Treatment
Group I: LPM: Letters-phonemes-general mouth awarenessExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
This group will receive training for phonemic segmentation that includes using printed letters, sounds (phonemes) while simultaneously learning about the mouth in general.
Group II: LPA: Letters-phonemes-articulatory gesturesExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
This group will receive training for phonemic segmentation that includes using printed letters, sounds (phonemes) while simultaneously learning the articulation placements of the letters/sounds.
Group III: LP: Letters-phonemesExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
This group will receive training for phonemic segmentation that includes using printed letters and sounds (phonemes) only.
Find a clinic near you
Research locations nearbySelect from list below to view details:
Montclair State UniversityMontclair, NJ
Loading ...
Who is running the clinical trial?
Montclair State UniversityLead Sponsor
References
Training phonemic segmentation ability with a phonemic discrimination intervention in second- and third-grade children with reading disabilities. [2017]The present study examined the possibility that phonemic discrimination training could improve the phonemic segmentation ability of children with reading disabilities. Half of the 32 children with reading disabilities (14 male and 4 female second graders and 10 male and 4 female third graders, with mean ages of 99.2 and 109.7 months, respectively) deficient in phonemic segmentation skills were assigned to the training group, while the other half acted as a nontrained control group. The trained children were successful at significantly improving their performance on the phonemic segmentation task. The control group made no improvement. Requiring children with reading disabilities to make discriminations concerning phonemic information may have helped them discover properties of the phoneme that they previously did not know.
The effects of blending and spelling training on the decoding skills of young poor readers. [2017]Blending and spelling training were compared in this experiment to determine which intervention would improve the decoding skills of two first-grade boys with learning disabilities who were in the phonetic cue stage of reading. Additionally, the two boys received pre- and posttest administrations of a phonemic segmentation task. Although neither intervention proved superior, the children met the learning criterion for both interventions and demonstrated both maintenance and generalization of their skills. They also improved their phonemic skills, even though independent training in this area was not provided. It appeared that the equivalence of the interventions may have been due to the intensive instructional setting and use of systematic error analysis procedures.
Can children and adults focus on sound as opposed to spelling in a phoneme counting task? [2019]Given the well-established link between phonemic awareness and literacy, it is important to better understand the foundations of phonemic awareness. The authors investigated the phoneme counting task, examining the degree to which children reading at a first-grade level and college students can focus on sound as opposed to spelling. In 2 experiments, both groups were found to be sensitive to some phonetic details that are not systematically represented in print. They had some ability to distinguish between monophthongs (as in he) and diphthongs (as in how), and they tended to count fewer "sounds" for syllables ending with the more sonorous (or vowel-like) consonant/r/than for syllables ending with less sonorous consonants. However, print-related knowledge also affected both groups. Even children judged syllables that were the names of letters to contain fewer "sounds" than syllables that were not letter names.
Generalization of early metalinguistic skills in a phonological decoding study with first-graders at risk for reading failure. [2019]This training study was designed to examine the effects of training letter-sound correspondences and phonemic decoding (segmenting and blending skills) on the decoding skills of three first-grade children identified to be at risk for reading failure. This training study was to examine the degree to which the subjects could readily learn decoding skills necessary for early reading and to determine the degree to which phonemic decoding training on CVC syllable structures generalize to untrained syllable structures. Three experimental subjects served as their own controls in a single-subject multiple-baseline design. Experimental subjects were compared to matched control subjects on their ability to decode real-word and pseudo-word stimuli and on formal test scores of reading and spelling. Following training, experimental subjects demonstrated substantial increases in their acquisition and generalization of phonological decoding skills, but revealed much smaller changes on pre-test to post-test measures of formal reading and spelling when compared to their matched control subjects.
Emergent literacy skills and training time uniquely predict variability in responses to phonemic awareness training in disadvantaged kindergartners. [2022]The factors that predicted variability in responses to phonemic awareness training were investigated in kindergartners who live in poverty. Treatment children (n=42) received both analytic and synthetic phonemic awareness computer-assisted instruction, while controls (n=34) received no special training. Mean age of participants was approximately 5 years 7 months. Pretests included initial phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, word-level reading, invented spelling, vocabulary knowledge, and print concepts. Spelling skills emerged as the best consistent predictor of variability in phonemic awareness in response to instruction. We propose that relations between phonemic awareness and spelling skills are bidirectional: Spelling influenced growth in phonemic awareness and phonemic awareness contributed to growth in spelling skills. The amount of exposure that children had to the treatment intervention contributed uniquely to individual differences in posttest levels of phonemic awareness and spelling.
Low literacy impairs comprehension of prescription drug warning labels. [2022]Adverse events resulting from medication error are a serious concern. Patients' literacy and their ability to understand medication information are increasingly seen as a safety issue.
Teaching phoneme awareness to pre-literate children with speech disorder: a randomized controlled trial. [2022]Awareness of individual phonemes in words is a late-acquired level of phonological awareness that usually develops in the early school years. It is generally agreed to have a close relationship with early literacy development, but its role in speech change is less well understood. Speech and language therapy for children with speech disorder involves tasks that appear, either implicitly or explicitly, to require a phonemic level of awareness. However, children typically attend for intervention at a pre-school, pre-literate stage, i.e. before they would be expected to have developed the relevant phoneme segmentation and manipulation skills.
On the interaction between phonological awareness and reading acquisition: It's a two-way Street. [2021]We have investigated the reciprocal influence of reading acquisition and phonemic awareness. Using a between-grades quasi-experimental design, we have found that learning to read is the most important factor that accounts for the drastic improvement of phonemic segmentation skills during the first year of schooling. On the other hand, we found that improving phonemic skills in kindergarten facilitated reading acquisition in children at risk for developing reading disorders. We suggest that, for most children, exposure to the alphabet automatically triggers phonemic awareness, which is a necessary condition for efficient acquisition of reading. However, the emergence of phonemic awareness requires a previously developed sensitivity to phonology, which in some children may be absent. The present data suggest that, if phonological skills are absent, they may be developed in preschoolers by explicit training, thereby preventing failure in reading acquisition.
Phoneme segmentation training: Effect on reading readiness. [2021]Recent evidence suggests that the ability to segment words into phonemes is significantly related to reading success, and that training in phoneme segmentation appears to have a positive influence on beginning reading. In this study, we evaluated the effect on reading readiness of phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten. Ninety nonreaders with PPVT-R standard scores of 78 or higher were randomly selected from six kindergarten classrooms and assigned to one of three treatment conditions: a) phoneme segmentation group; b) language activities group (control group I); and c) no intervention (control group II). The phoneme segmentation group received seven weeks of instruction in segmentation and in letter names and sounds. Also for seven weeks, the language activities group received the identical instruction in letter names and sounds and additional language activities. Prior to the intervention, the three groups did not differ in age, sex, race, PPVT-R phoneme segmentation, letter name and letter sound knowledge, or reading ability. After the intervention, the phoneme segmentation group outperformed both control groups on phoneme segmentation and reading measures. This study provides additional strong support for including phoneme segmentation training in the kindergarten curriculum. Clinical suggestions for teachers are included.
Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels. [2022]How drug adverse events (AEs) are communicated in the United States may mislead consumers and result in low adherence. Requiring written information to include numeric AE-likelihood information might lessen these effects, but providing numbers may disadvantage less skilled populations. The objective was to determine risk comprehension and willingness to use a medication when presented with numeric or nonnumeric AE-likelihood information across age, numeracy, and cholesterol-lowering drug-use groups.
Application of Natural Language Processing and Network Analysis Techniques to Post-market Reports for the Evaluation of Dose-related Anti-Thymocyte Globulin Safety Patterns. [2018]To evaluate the feasibility of automated dose and adverse event information retrieval in supporting the identification of safety patterns.
Comparing Different Adverse Effects Among Multiple Drugs Using FAERS Data. [2021]US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event (AE) Reporting System (FAERS) is a major source of data for monitoring drug safety. However, there is not general procedure to systematically compare drugs group. We present a statistical method, which can effectively identify significant differences in AE rates among drugs and estimates the differences in age and gender distributions.
Utilizing Deep Learning for Detecting Adverse Drug Events in Structured and Unstructured Regulatory Drug Data Sets. [2022]The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) collects and retains several data sets on post-market drugs and associated adverse events (AEs). The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) contains millions of AE reports submitted by the public when a medication is suspected to have caused an AE. The FDA monitors these reports to identify drug safety issues that were undetected during the premarket evaluation of these products. These reports contain patient narratives that provide information regarding the AE that needs to be coded using standardized terminology to enable aggregation of reports for further review. Additionally, the FDA collects structured drug product labels (SPLs) that facilitate standardized distribution of information regarding marketed medical products. Manufacturers are currently not required to code labels with associated AEs.