About

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation (ASHFoundation) invites new investigators to submit proposals in competition for one $10,000 grant underwritten by an endowment fund in memory of the late Dennis Klatt, noted researcher and scientist in speech communication. Until his death in 1989, Dr. Klatt conducted research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the acoustic properties of speech production and perception.

The Speech Science Research Grant is designed to further research activities of new investigators and to promote Dr. Klatt's work. It can be used to initiate new research or supplement an existing research study. Funds may be requested for a variety of purposes—for example, equipment, subjects, research assistants, or research-related travel.

Note for 2026: In preparation for the grant submission and review processes, the ASHFoundation requests that potential investigators complete an Intent to Submit Form by March 4 to provide information regarding their proposed studies. This step must be completed before proceeding to the proposal submission process.

Eligibility

Investigators must meet the following criteria to be eligible for the Speech Science Research Grant.

  1. The investigator must have completed a PhD or equivalent research doctorate within the past five years (since 2021).
  1. The proposal must be for research in speech science, although the investigator's field of degree is unrestricted. Priority will be given to areas reflecting Dr. Klatt's broad interests, such as speech perception, synthesis, and acoustics, with an emphasis on an interdisciplinary research approach.
  1. There are no restrictions on prior or simultaneous funding.
  1. The proposal submitted to the 2025 Speech Science Research Grant competition cannot be submitted to other 2025 ASHFoundation grant competitions. However, the investigator remains eligible to submit to other ASHFoundation grant competitions in the same year, if proposing to investigate a different topic.

Evaluation Criteria

A review panel will evaluate proposals based on the following three factors.

Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Scored 1–9)

  • Significance: The potential for the study to advance the discipline of communication sciences and disorders and to impact clinical needs relevant to audiology or speech-language pathology. Its significance as an early step in a research area of concentration must be clear and viable. Consideration of the rationale for undertaking the study, the rigor of the scientific background for the work (e.g., prior literature and/or preliminary data) and whether the scientific background justifies the proposed study.
  • Innovation: The refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, methods, or interventions leading to high impact on the discipline. The extent to which innovation influences the importance of undertaking the proposed research. Note that while technical or conceptual innovation can influence the importance of the proposed research, a project that is not applying novel concepts or approaches may be of critical importance for the field.

Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Scored 1–9)

  • Approach: The likelihood that compelling, reproducible findings will result (rigor) and whether the proposed studies can be done well and within the timeframes proposed (feasibility). The merits of the design for accomplishing the specific aims of the study and, if applicable, the potential challenges of moving the study toward completion. The appropriateness and feasibility of a detailed account of the method, including measurement and data-analysis plans, will be considered relative to the award size.

Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Scored 1–9)

  • Investigator: The perceived ability to carry out the study in one year, reflected by appropriate training, experience, and past accomplishments. The investigator outlines clear and detailed management and budget plans.
  • Environment: The extent to which the investigator has access to needed scientific facilities, resources, personnel, and participants.

Reviewers will assign scores on a 1–9 scale for each of the three factors. They will also consider these factors to assign an Overall Impact Score, reflecting their assessment of the study's potential to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. A proposal does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have a major scientific impact.

The Overall Impact score reflects reviewers' assessment of whether the proposed study will be completed competently, be disseminated appropriately, advance the investigator's research program for future funding, and has the potential to impact the discipline.

The three factors contribute differentially to the Overall Impact score to correspond to the goals and funding level of the grant competition. For the Speech Science Research Grant, Factor 1 (Importance of the Research) and Factor 2 (Rigor and Feasibility) will be more heavily weighted because a tightly designed, feasible study is most appropriate. The promise of the investigator will be highly prioritized but will be evaluated in comparison to other new researchers in the discipline based on the investigator's ability to clearly describe the activities and timeline necessary to complete the study in one year.

Proposal Guidelines

Proposal text should be single-spaced and placed in ONE PDF document containing all required sections in the order indicated. Additional attachments will not be accepted. Please use stated titles (below) as section headers. Font should be 12 point and uncondensed, and margins should be at least 1 inch.

  1. Investigator Letter (limit 2 pages)
    Provide a letter of application addressed to the "Grant Review Committee." Explain briefly why you are pursuing the proposed study, the specific aims of the proposed research, and how the study fits into your career development plan. Include, as appropriate, information relative to your research interests and activities to date. Specifically indicate how your institution will support your research efforts. (Please note that this letter is not intended to be a replication of the detailed investigator biographical sketch.)

    Resubmission
    If this proposal is a revision of a prior submission to the ASHFoundation, the Investigator Letter must address how the proposal has been revised to respond to the prior set of reviews.
  1. Abstract (limit 1 page)
    Concisely describe the study's specific aims, methodology, and long-term objectives, referring to the scientific disciplines involved. Relate the study to clinical practice and its potential impact on communication sciences and disorders.
  1. Research Plan (limit 10 pages)

    Note: If the request is to supplement an existing research study, sections A through D in the Research Plan may be adapted and shortened accordingly and the optional section E should be included.

    1. Specific Aims: Present the problem or issue to be addressed and objectives of the proposed study. Include research questions and/or hypotheses.

    2. Significance of Research: Outline the significance of the existing need and the importance of the proposed study in understanding, remediating, or compensating for the problem. Address the potential impact of the study’s activities on the discipline of communication sciences and disorders.

    3. Design Methods, Procedures, and Evaluation: Provide both a description and a justification for the study design, including subjects, measurement techniques, instrumentation, data analysis, and evaluation procedures. Address ecological validity, if the type of research warrants this. Address potential challenges that could impact completion of the study. This section should provide enough detail for reviewers to make informed judgments about the soundness of the proposed research procedures.

    4. Facilities and Resources: Describe the facilities, resources, personnel, and subjects available to you for carrying out the proposed study.

    5. Importance of Request to Research Plan (optional): If the funds requested are to supplement existing research, describe how the funds will enhance the study.

  1. References (limit 2 pages)
  1. Management Plan and Budget (limit 2 pages)
    Provide an outline of study activities and timelines. The study start date will be December 1, 2026. Incorporate ASHFoundation report deadlines into the management timeline. Justify budget items for direct expenses. Institutional overhead and indirect costs are not covered due to the size of the grant. In addition, funding may not be directed to travel expenses for conventions or meetings. Funding will be disbursed in U.S. currency to investigators in the United States or Canada.
  1. Biographical Sketch
    Provide an NIH-style biographical sketch using one of the following formats:
    • Biographical Sketch Common Form
      Submit a PDF version of the Biographical Sketch Common Form. Note that the ASHFoundation does not accept biosketch submissions through SciENcv directly. If using the Common Form, investigators must submit their biosketch as a PDF. There is no page limit.
    • Classic NIH Biosketch
      Submit a biosketch following the classic (pre-2026) NIH biosketch format [DOC]. Adapt the form as appropriate for the investigator profile. There is a five-page limit for this format.
  1. IRB Approval
    If the study will use human participants, include the consent form(s) and copy of the Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) approval.

    If the IRB approval is not available at time of proposal submission, you should clearly explain the status of the IRB approval process and ensure that approval documents are sent to the ASHFoundation as soon as IRB approval is granted, but not later than August 31, 2026.

    It is essential to start the IRB approval process early. A lack of IRB determination by August 31, 2026, will automatically disqualify the proposal from funding consideration. The investigator assumes full responsibility for meeting these requirements.

    Human Subjects (If IRB Approval is not available at the time of submission)
    If the IRB approval will not be available until the deadline of August 31, 2026, the investigator should provide the following information (limit 3 pages):
    1. Describe the characteristics of the participant population, including the anticipated number, age range, gender, ethnic background, and health status.
    2. Identify sources of research materials in the form of specimens, records, and/or data.
    3. Describe plans for the recruitment of participants and the consent procedures to be followed (include copy of consent form to be used).
    4. Describe the potential risks to participants (e.g., physical, psychological, social, legal, or other).
    5. Describe the procedures for protecting against or minimizing potential risks to participants, including risks to confidentiality.
    6. Discuss why risks to participants are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits and to the importance of possible resulting knowledge.
  1. Letter of Institutional Commitment
    Submit a letter addressed to the "Grant Review Committee" from your current supervisor in your employment setting indicating that the study is endorsed and will not present a conflict of interest with your current responsibilities and commitments.
  1. Letters of Support (optional)
    If applicable, provide letters of support from cooperating agencies and key personnel (i.e., other collaborators and consultants) involved in the research study.