Reading Diagnosis--Qualitative or Quantitative?.

/T,HERE are many people who A believe that simply counting errors on informal reading inven tories can help a teacher deter mine a student's instructional level (Geeslin, 1972). Research for the last ten years on reading miscues continuously reaffirms the conclusion that when a reader's errors are simply counted and this quantitative in formation is used for placement, the reader may be encouraged to read material which is either too simple or too difficult for him. Reader's miscues must be evalu ated based on the degree to which the miscue disrupts the meaning of the written material. Once the miscue has been produced by the reader, it is then important to as sess the effectiveness of the strate gies he uses when meaning is disrupted. This qualitative analysis of miscues can enable a teacher to help a reader select appropriate written material. It also provides specific information regarding a reader's strengths and weaknesses which can be used to plan a personalized reading program. Miscues are a natural part of the reading process. By placing a premium on error counts a teacher begins to believe that minimizing miscuing behavior is desirable. Such is not the case. The number of miscues a reader makes is much less significant than the meaning of the language which results when a miscue has occurred. Miscue analysis is carried out by having the student read orally not simply a passage out of con text but a whole story. (A reader