Kathryn H Kreimeyer

Interests

No activities entered.

Courses

Scholarly Contributions

Journals/Publications

• Antia, S. D., Jones, P., Luckner, J., Kreimeyer, K. H., & Reed, S. (2011). Social outcomes of students who are deaf and hard of hearing in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 489-504.
  More info

  Abstract: Students with hearing loss attending general education classrooms have been reported to experience difficulties in social skills and relationships. This 5-year longitudinal study examined the social skills and problem behaviors of students who were deaf or hard of hearing, and who attended general education classrooms. Data were obtained from classroom teachers and students themselves. The mean Social Skills and Problem Behavior scores (Social Skills Rating Scales; Gresham & Elliott, 1990) were within the average range and normally distributed each year. The average change over 5 years in social skills and problem behavior was not significant. The most consistent predictors of social outcomes were the students' classroom communication participation and participation in extracurricular activities. Implications for placement, intervention, and further research are discussed. © 2011 Council for Exceptional Children.
• Antia, S. D., Jones, P. B., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2009). Academic status and progress of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in general education classrooms. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(3), 293-311.
  More info

  PMID: 19502625;Abstract: The study participants were 197 deaf or hard-of-hearing students with mild to profound hearing loss who attended general education classes for 2 or more hours per day. We obtained scores on standardized achievement tests of math, reading, and language/writing, and standardized teacher's ratings of academic competence annually, for 5 years, together with other demographic and communication data. Results on standardized achievement tests indicated that, over the 5-year period, 63%-79% of students scored in the average or above-average range in math, 48%-68% in reading, and 55%-76% in language/writing. The standardized test scores for the group were, on average, half an SD below hearing norms. Average student progress in each subject area was consistent with or better than that made by the norm group of hearing students, and 79%-81% of students made one or more year's progress annually. Teachers rated 69%-81% of students as average or above average in academic competence over the 5 years. The teacher's ratings also indicated that 89% of students made average or above-average progress. Students' expressive and receptive communication, classroom participation, communication mode, and parental participation in school were significantly, but moderately, related to academic outcomes. © The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
• Kreimeyer, K., Antia, S. D., Jones, P. B., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2009). Academic status and progress of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in general education classrooms. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 14(3).
  More info

  The study participants were 197 deaf or hard-of-hearing students with mild to profound hearing loss who attended general education classes for 2 or more hours per day. We obtained scores on standardized achievement tests of math, reading, and language/writing, and standardized teacher's ratings of academic competence annually, for 5 years, together with other demographic and communication data. Results on standardized achievement tests indicated that, over the 5-year period, 63%-79% of students scored in the average or above-average range in math, 48%-68% in reading, and 55%-76% in language/writing. The standardized test scores for the group were, on average, half an SD below hearing norms. Average student progress in each subject area was consistent with or better than that made by the norm group of hearing students, and 79%-81% of students made one or more year's progress annually. Teachers rated 69%-81% of students as average or above average in academic competence over the 5 years. The teacher's ratings also indicated that 89% of students made average or above-average progress. Students' expressive and receptive communication, classroom participation, communication mode, and parental participation in school were significantly, but moderately, related to academic outcomes.
• Kreimeyer, K., Reed, S., Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2008). Academic status of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public schools: student, home, and service facilitators and detractors. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 13(4).
  More info

  We examined facilitators and detractors of academic success of 25 deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) students selected from a pool of 187 students attending general education classes and enrolled in a study of academic progress. Interviews with their teachers of DHH, general education teachers, principals, parents, interpreters, and students themselves were analyzed for child, family, and school facilitators and detractors of academic status. Facilitators included student self-advocacy and motivation, high family and school expectations, families' ability to help with homework, and good communication between professionals. Detractors included additional disabilities and poor family-school communication. A comparison of above- and below-average students revealed no single distinguishing facilitator or detractor. Each above-average student had many facilitators, whereas each below-average student had several significant detractors.
• Reed, S., Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2008). Academic status of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public schools: Student, home, and service facilitators and detractors. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(4), 485-502.
  More info

  PMID: 18344539;Abstract: We examined facilitators and detractors of academic success of 25 deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) students selected from a pool of 187 students attending general education classes and enrolled in a study of academic progress. Interviews with their teachers of DHH, general education teachers, principals, parents, interpreters, and students themselves were analyzed for child, family, and school facilitators and detractors of academic status. Facilitators included student self-advocacy and motivation, high family and school expectations, families' ability to help with homework, and good communication between professionals. Detractors included additional disabilities and poor family-school communication. A comparison of above- and below-average students revealed no single distinguishing facilitator or detractor. Each above-average student had many facilitators, whereas each below-average student had several significant detractors. © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
• Antia, S. D., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2005). Written language of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public schools. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(3), 244-255.
  More info

  PMID: 15901658;Abstract: We obtained data on the writing of 110 deaf or hard-of-hearing students attending public schools who completed the spontaneous writing portion of the Test of Written Language. The average written quotient for the sample was in the below-average range but within 1 standard deviation of the test mean. Forty-nine percent of the sample received written quotients within or above the average range. Mean scores for the three subtests of contextual conventions, contextual language, and story construction were within the low-average range; between 55% and 68% of students scored within the average or above-average range for the subtests. Predictors of writing quotients were eligibility for free lunch, grade, degree of hearing loss and gender; however, only 18% of the variance in total writing quotients was explained by these variables. The data indicate that attention needs to be paid to the writing ability and instruction of many public-school students regardless of degree of hearing loss. © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
• Kreimeyer, K., Antia, S. D., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2005). Written language of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public schools. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 10(3).
  More info

  We obtained data on the writing of 110 deaf or hard-of-hearing students attending public schools who completed the spontaneous writing portion of the Test of Written Language. The average written quotient for the sample was in the below-average range but within 1 standard deviation of the test mean. Forty-nine percent of the sample received written quotients within or above the average range. Mean scores for the three subtests of contextual conventions, contextual language, and story construction were within the low-average range; between 55% and 68% of students scored within the average or above-average range for the subtests. Predictors of writing quotients were eligibility for free lunch, grade, degree of hearing loss and gender; however, only 18% of the variance in total writing quotients was explained by these variables. The data indicate that attention needs to be paid to the writing ability and instruction of many public-school students regardless of degree of hearing loss.
• Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2001). The role of interpreters in inclusive classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(4), 355-365.
  More info

  PMID: 11816860;Abstract: The roles of interpreters in an inclusive classroom were examined through a qualitative, 3-year case study of three interpreters in an inclusive school. Interviews were conducted with interpreters, classroom teachers, special education teachers, and administrators. The interview data were supplemented with observations and field notes. Results indicate that in addition to sign interpreting between American Sign Language and speech, the interpreters clarified teacher directions, facilitated peer interaction, tutored the deaf children, and kept the teachers and special educators informed of the deaf children's progress. The interpreter/aides and the classroom teachers preferred this full-participant interpreter role, while the special educators and administrators preferred a translator role. Classroom teachers were more comfortable with full-time interpreters who knew the classroom routine, while the special educators and administrators feared that full-time interpreters fostered child and teacher dependence. These issues are discussed in terms of congruence with the Registry of Interpreters code of ethics and how integration of young children might be best facilitated.
• Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (1997). The generalization and maintenance of the peer social behaviors of young children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28(1), 59-69.
  More info

  Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a social skills and comparison intervention on peer social behaviors of 43 young children who were deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH). Both interventions were conducted in small groups consisting of children who were D/HH and hearing. Data were obtained on 15 social behaviors in four categories: peer interaction, play, child initiations/peer responses, and peer initiations/child responses. Social behaviors were recorded during free play (a) before the intervention, (b) immediately after the intervention ceased, and (c) 4 weeks after the intervention ceased. Children receiving the social skills intervention decreased their frequency of solitary and parallel play. These changes were maintained 1 year later in an outdoor play setting.
• Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (1996). Social interaction and acceptance of deaf or hard-of-hearing children and their peers: A comparison of social-skills and familiarity-based interventions. Volta Review, 98(4), 157-180.
  More info

  Abstract: This study compared the effects of two interventions on the social interaction and acceptance between deaf or hard-of-hearing children and their (a) deaf or hard-of-hearing peers, (b) normally hearing peers who were familiar with the deaf or hard-of-hearing children and participated in the interventions, and (c) normally hearing peers who were unfamiliar with the deaf or hard-of-hearing children and did not participate in the interventions. During a teacher-mediated social-skills intervention, teachers designed activities to promote peer interaction and modeled and prompted children to use specific social skills during these activities. During an integrated-activities intervention, deaf or hard-of-hearing and normally hearing children worked together regularly to allow them to become familiar with one another. The social-skills intervention successfully increased the interaction between the deaf or hard-of-hearing children and their deaf or hard-of-hearing peers. The increase in interaction generalized to free play and was maintained for 4 weeks after the intervention ceased. Neither intervention increased interaction between deaf or hard-of-hearing children and their normally hearing peers. Deaf or hard-of-hearing children and familiar normally hearing peers increased their recognition of one another, but neither intervention increased normally hearing children's social acceptance of their deaf or hard-of-hearing peers.