Assessment of Beginning Reading: A Framework for Coding Error Patterns in Oral Reading Performance

Chittenden, Edward A.

doi:10.1002/j.2330-8516.1984.tb00059.x

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, readers with disabilities have been shown to be less likely than normal readers to self-correct their errors regardless of the linguistic acceptability of the errors (Beebe, 1979(Beebe, -1980Bowey, 1985;Chittendon, 1984;D'Angelo, 1982;Leibert, 1982;Pflaum & Pascarella, 1980;Wixson, 1979). Poor readers are also known to be less likely to omit nonessential words than are proficient readers (Y.…”

Section: Arlene Adamsmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Oral Reading Errors of Readers with Learning Disabilities: Variations Produced Within the Instructional and Frustrational Ranges

Adams

1991

Remedial and Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine the word recognition abilities of readers with learning disabilities (LD) at four levels: Grades 2, 5, 8, and 11. The study's premise was that previous findings in relation to the word recognition abilities of readers with LD have been confounded by the use of frustration level materials for these readers. Therefore, this study compared the word recognition errors of readers with LD when they were reading instructional level materials (between 3% and 9% word recognition errors) and frustrational level materials (greater then 9% word recognition errors). The word recognition errors considered by this study were basic miscues (substitutions, omissions, insertions, teacherpronounced); substitution types; reversal errors; and linguistic acceptability (syntactic and semantic). Findings showed that in the categories of linguistic acceptability, the readers produced significantly fewer acceptable responses when reading frustration level materials than when reading instructional level materials. No such difference was found in any of the other miscue categories when the two difficulty levels were compared.T HE PURPOSE OF this study was to investigate the word recognition abilities of readers with learning disabilities (LD) at four levels: Grades 2, 5, 8, and 11. This study focused on the differences between the miscues made by these subjects when they were reading materials within two difficulty ranges, instructional and frustration. For this study the instructional range was defined as a word recognition error rate of between 3 % and 9% (Cooper, 1952; Pikulski, 1974; Powell, 1973), whereas the frustration range was defined as greater than 9% word recognition error rate (Betts, 1946; Pikulski, 1974; Powell, 1973). This study of word recognition abilities of readers with LD is important because of the extensive amount of time spent on word recognition instruction for readers with LD. This amount of time far exceeds that spent on word recognition for normal readers, because readers with LD are viewed as being much less skilled in word recognition abilities than normal readers.Various studies have led educators to several beliefs about the miscue patterns of readers with disabilities. For example, readers with disabilities have been shown to be less likely than normal readers to self-correct their errors regardless of the linguistic acceptability of the errors (Beebe

show abstract

Section: Arlene Adamsmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Oral Reading Errors of Readers with Learning Disabilities: Variations Produced Within the Instructional and Frustrational Ranges

Adams

1991

Remedial and Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessment of Beginning Reading: A Framework for Coding Error Patterns in Oral Reading Performance

Cited by 1 publication

References 9 publications

The Oral Reading Errors of Readers with Learning Disabilities: Variations Produced Within the Instructional and Frustrational Ranges

The Oral Reading Errors of Readers with Learning Disabilities: Variations Produced Within the Instructional and Frustrational Ranges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About