http://jlr.sagepub.com/Journal of Literacy Research

http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/11/2/163The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1080/10862967909547319

1979 11: 163Journal of Literacy ResearchKaren L. Wixson

Miscue Analysis: A Critical Review  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

Literary Research Association

can be found at:Journal of Literacy ResearchAdditional services and information for    

  http://jlr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jlr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/11/2/163.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jun 1, 1979Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Reading Behavior1979, Vol. XI, No. Z

MISCUE ANALYSIS:A CRITICAL REVIEW1

Karen L. WixsonSyracuse University

Abstract. Miscue analysis procedures are becoming increasingly popular for bothresearch and evaluation purposes. Although there are no normative data available toguide the interpretation of a reader's oral reading miscues, there are a number ofstudies which may be used for this purpose. However the evidence also suggests thatmiscue patterns are subject to considerable variation as a function of a complex in-teraction among several factors including instructional method, the reader'sbackground, skills, and purpose for reading, and the nature and content of the writtenmaterial. The information reported to date suggests that both the assumptionsunderlying miscue analysis and the procedures used to analyze miscues require addi-tional rigorous empirical explication and validation.

Miscue analysis describes a variety of procedures that attempt to identify howreaders process print by analyzing their oral reading errors. Interest in the ideasunderlying miscue analysis dates back to Huey (1908/1968) and has been morerecently popularized by K. Goodman (1969, 1973} and his colleagues (Allen & Wat-son, 1976; Y. Goodman & Burke, 1972; Page, 1975).

The fundamental assumption underlying miscue analysis is that reading is apsycholinguistic process. That is, reading is a process which results from an interac-tion between thought and language (K. Goodman, 1969, 1970, 1973). Specifically,reading is defined as the "active process of reconstructing meaning from languagerepresented by graphic symbols" (Smith, Meredith & K. Goodman, 1970, p. 247).The reader then is viewed as a language user who seeks meaning through interactionwith printed material (K. Goodman, 1970).

Miscue analysis procedures provide a structure for the analysis of oral readingerrors. Oral reading errors have been renamed miscues because it is believed thatthey are not random errors, but rather are cued by the interaction between thoughtand language in the reader as written material is processed (Y. Goodman & Burke,1972). It is assumed that both expected and unexpected oral reading responses areproduced by the same process (K. Goodman & Y. Goodman, 1977). Miscues then areexpected to serve as a "window on the reading process" (K. Goodman, 1973; K.Goodman & Y. Goodman, 1977; Y. Goodman & Burke, 1972).

Miscue analysis procedures are specifically designed to identify and evaluate thestrategies used by a particular reader to process written material (K. Goodman, 1969,

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

164 Journal of Reading Behavior

1973; Y. Goodman & Burke, 1972; Page, 1975). Certain elements may differsomewhat among the various miscue analysis procedures currently in use, but thebasic methodology remains the same. The following is a summary of the basic pro-cedure as outlined by K. Goodman (1973).

1. A reading passage providing a continuity of meaning is selected forthe reader. The selection must be somewhat difficult and long enoughto generate a minimum of 25 mis cues.

2. The selection is retyped and each line is numbered to correspond withthe appropriate page and line from the original text, to be used as acode sheet for recording miscues.

3. The reader is informed that the reading will be unaided and that s/hewill be asked to retell the story after s/he has finished reading. Thecode sheet is marked as the reader reads the selection. The readingand retelling are tape recorded for future reference.

4. The reader is permitted to retell the story without interruption.Following the unaided retelling, the reader is asked probing questionsdesigned to explore areas omitted in the retelling.

5. The miscues are coded.6. Miscue patterns are studied, interpreted, and translated into instruc-

tion.Each miscue is coded on the basis of the answers to a specific set of questions.

The exact number of questions varies from procedure to procedure, but the nature ofthe questions remains constant. The Reading Miscue inventory utilizes the followingnine questions:

1. Dialect. Is a dialect variation involved in the miscue?2. Graphic Similarity. How much does the miscue look like.what was

expected?3. Sound Similarity. How much does the miscue sound like what was

expected?4. Intonation. Is a shift in intonation involved?5. Grammatical Function. Is the grammatical function of the miscue the

same as the grammatical function of the word in the text?6. Correction. Is the miscue corrected?7. Grammatical Acceptability. Does the miscue occur in a structure

which is grammatically acceptable?8. Semantic Acceptability. Does the miscue occur in a structure which is

semantically acceptable?9. Meaning Change. Does the miscue result in a change of meaning?

(Y. Goodman& Burke, 1972, pp. 49-50)

The information obtained through the analysis of each miscue is used collective-ly to produce a profile of the reader's strengths and weaknesses. The completed pro-file yields a variety of information including: the degree to which the reader'smiscues disrupted comprehension; the degree to which the miscues weregraphophonically, syntactically, and semantically similar to the original text; and therelationship between each miscue, the text, and the other miscues produced [Burke,1976a).

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Miscue Analysis: A Critical Review 165

Miscue analysis procedures are designed to provide insight into the reading pro-cess, and to evaluate the extent to which a particular reader has control of that pro-cess (K. Goodman, 1976; Y. Goodman & Burke, 1972). Further, it is expected that theinformation obtained through miscue analysis will be used as the basis for subse-quent instruction (Burke, 1975; K. Goodman, 1973, 1976; Y. Goodman & Burke,1972).

MISCUE PATTERN TRENDS

There are no normative data to guide the interpretation of a particular reader'smiscue patterns. Therefore one must rely on the available research regarding miscueanalysis for direction in interpretation. While there are a number of studies availablefor such a purpose, the amount of information presented by each is quite limited.Many of the reports reviewed fail to indicate specific details regarding the nature ofthe sample population, the methods and conditions of the investigation and/or thestatistical results of the analysis. Thus the following discussion is limited by thenature of the information available for interpretation. Further, it should be noted thatthere is some question regarding the comparability of the results of the various pro-cedures used by different investigators (Hood, 1975-76). Irrespective of these limita-tions, the information regarding miscue patterns suggests the existence of severaltrends.

The consistency with which readers produce miscues that are more contextuallyacceptable than graphophonically similar to the original text appears to represent ageneral trend (Allen, 1969; Biemiller, 1970; Burke & K. Goodman, 1970; Clay, 1968;Kolers, 1970; Weber, 1970a). Biemiller's (1970) analysis of the oral reading errors offirst graders indicated that the proportion of graphically similar substitutions to con-textually similar substitutions varied throughout grade one. However, even when thereaders' substitutions revealed the greatest degree of graphic similarity, contextuallysimilar miscues were still at least 30 To more frequent than graphically similarmiscues. Burke and K. Goodman (1970) in a report of a fourth grade proficientreader's miscues indicate that almost 40 To of his miscues involved no graphicsimilarity at all whereas 82 % of his miscues were totally syntactically acceptable tothe text being read. Clay (1968) in a study of 100 five year old readers found 72% ofthe errors of the total group to be grammatically acceptable, whereas only 41 % of thetotal errors revealed any graphophonic correspondence to the expected response.Collectively these studies suggest that under standard miscue analysis proceduresone would expect most readers to produce a greater proportion of contextually (i.e.,syntactically and semantically) acceptable miscues than graphophonically similarmiscues.

Another trend is suggested by the information available regarding the degree towhich a reader's miscues are syntactically and/or semantically acceptable. It ap-pears that most readers' miscues tend to be more syntactically acceptable thansemantically acceptable (Allen, 1969; Burke, 1969, 1976b; Burke & Goodman, 1970;Y. Goodman, 1976). Allen (1969) analyzed the oral reading miscues of 15 averagereaders, five each from grades two, four, and six. He observed that over 70% of allmiscues had full syntactic acceptability for all three grades. Further, he indicatedthat of the four relations examined (i.e., graphic, phonemic, syntactic, semantic),

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

166 Journal of Reading Behavior

syntactic relations were the highest for each grade level. Burke (1969) studied theoral reading miscues of six average readers in grade six. She reports that 81 % of theirmiscues were totally syntactically acceptable whereas only 617« of then* miscueswere totally semantically acceptable. Burke (1976b) also reports that miscue contain-ing sentences generated by readers in grades two and six were syntactically accep-table at least 717o of the time, whereas a maximum of 44% of the sentences weresemantically acceptable. K. Goodman (1978) presents data regarding the syntacticand semantic acceptability of the miscues produced by low, low average, highaverage, and high readers in grades eight and ten while reading several selections ofvarying difficulty. The data indicate that on the average approximately 70% of themiscues produced by these readers were syntactically acceptable while approximate-ly 50% were semantically acceptable.

There is additional evidence to suggest that the majority of most readers'miscues tend to be syntactically acceptable (Clay, 1968; Coomber, 1972; Y. Good-man, 1976; Menosky, 1971; Weber, 1970b). Collectively, these studies suggest thatone would expect readers at all levels to produce a large percentage of syntacticallyacceptable miscues. Further, one would expect the percentage of syntactically ac^ceptable miscues to exceed that of the semantically acceptable miscues by at least20%.

There is also evidence to suggest that there are certain patterns whichcharacterize readers' miscues as they mature and/or develop increased reading profi-ciency. First, it appears that the proportion of syntactically and semantically accep-table miscues tends to increase as readers become more proficient (Au, 1977; K.Goodman, 1976; K. Goodman & Y. Goodman, 1977; Greene, 1974; Jensen, 1972).

There are also a number of studies that suggest that the relative frequency ofgraphically similar miscues varies according to the reader's age and/or proficiency.Biemiller (1970) reports a relatively low percentage (21%) of graphically similarsubstitutions for grade one readers in the early stages of reading acquisition. He alsoobserved that the percentage of graphically similar substitutions gradually increasedto 50% as the readers progressed through the early stages of reading during gradeone. Weber (1970a) noted that the average graphic similarity of first grade readers'substitution errors increased during the course of grade one reading instruction. K.Goodman (1965) reported that the oral reading errors of readers in grades one to threeindicated an increased use of graphophonic cues in successive grades.

It is unclear at this time whether the observed increase in the percentage ofgraphophonically similar miscues among young beginning readers is a function of in-creased proficiency or increased age. Y. Goodman indicates that "as readers getolder, regardless of developing proficiency, they produce miscues which have closerphonemic and graphic similarity to the text" (1976, p. 119). Regardless of the cause,one would expect the percentage of graphophonically similar miscues to gradually in-crease for most readers at least up through grade three.

Additional information suggests that at some point during the development ofreading proficiency the percentage of graphically similar miscues stabilizes, at leastfor good readers. This conclusion is based on evidence that good readers produce arelatively smaller percentage of graphically similar miscues than do poor readers(Au, 1977; K. Goodman & Y. Goodman, 1977; Jensen, 1972). If the percentage ofgraphically similar miscues gradually increases for young beginning readers and good

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Miscue Analysis: A Critical Review 167

readers produce a lower percentage of graphically similar miscues than poor readers,then the percentage of graphically similar miscues must stabilize at some point as afunction of increased proficiency. It is unclear at what level of proficiency one mightexpect the percentage of graphically similar miscues to begin to stabilize, altoughthere is some evidence that this trend may begin as early as grade one for somereaders (Au, 1977; Biemiller, 1970; Jensen, 1972).

There are several other trends that are also worthy of mention at this time.Young readers in the early stages of reading acquisition tend to restrict theirresponses to previously learned words (Biemiller, 1970; Y. Goodman, 1976; Weber,1970a). Consistent with this is the observation that the substitution errors of youngreaders in the early stages of developing proficiency tend to be real words (Y. Good-man, 1976). It appears that young readers also tend to produce a large number ofomission errors (Biemiller, 1970; K. Goodman, 1965; Weber, 1970a). A large percen-tage of these omissions appear to be "no response"errors to words the readersperceive as unfamiliar (Biemiller, 1970; Y. Goodman, 1976). As readers mature theybegin to substitute nonwords and/or real words they have not yet encountered inprint as alternatives to no response errors (Y. Goodman, 1976; Levine, 1974). Asreaders become more proficient they tend to omit known words that are unnecessaryfor understanding rather than unknown words (Y. Goodman, 1976; Greene, 1974). Inshort, young beginning readers' miscues reveal large percentages of no response andreal word substitution errors. As readers mature no response errors tend to decreaseand nonword substitution errors tend to increase. As proficiency develops readerstend to omit known words rather than unknown words.,

A final noteworthy trend emerges from the observed differences in readers'tendency to self correct their oral reading miscues. Generally, it appears that readerswith low comprehension scores tend to make few correction attempts (Allen, 1976).Further, it appears that poor readers tend to correct a smaller percentage of theirmiscues than do good readers (Au, 1977; Clay, 1968; Weber, 1970b). There is alsoevidence to suggest that more proficient readers have a greater awareness of whichmiscues interfere with meaning and therefore require correction (K. Goodman, 1976;Jensen, 1972). Consistent with this observation, Weber (1970b) reported that highachieving readers in grade one corrected 85 "ft of their grammatically unacceptableerrors as compared to only 27fo of their grammatically acceptable errors, whereasthe low achieving readers corrected 42 7° of their unacceptable errors as compared to32"7b of their acceptable errors. Thus it appears that in addition to a difference in cor-rection rate there is also a difference in the relative proportion of acceptable to unac-ceptable errors corrected by good and poor readers.

In summary, the following patterns appear to emerge as trends from the in-formation reported to date.

1. Most readers, regardless of age and/or proficiency, produce a greaternumber of contextually (i.e., syntactically and semantically) accep-table miscues than graphophonically similar miscues.a. The majority of most readers' miscues are syntactically acceptable.b. Most readers produce a large percentage of syntactically acceptable

miscues than they do semantically acceptable miscues.

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

168 Journal of Reading Behavior

2. Young beginning readers' miscues tend to include a large number ofreal word substitutions and "no response" omissions.

3. As readers mature the percentage of graphophonically similarmiscues tends to increase initially.a. The percentage of "no response" omissions tends to decrease with

age.b. Older readers tend to substitute nonword and/ or real words they

have never before seen in print.4. Less proficient readers tend to produce a relatively larger percentage

of graphophonically similar miscues than more proficient readers.a. Less proficient readers.make fewer attempts to correct their miscues

than more proficient readers.b. Less proficient readers tend to correct acceptable and unacceptable

miscues at almost an equal rate.5. As readers become more proficient the percentage of graphophonical-

ly similar miscues tends to stabilize.a. The proportion of syntactically and semantically acceptable miscues

increases with proficiency.b. Proficient readers tend to omit known words that are not essential

for understanding.c. Proficient readers tend to correct more of their miscues than less

proficient readers.d. Proficient readers tend to correct unacceptable miscues at a higher

rate than acceptable miscues.

MISCUE PATTERN VARIABILITY

The foregoing assumes that miscue patterns reflect the reading process as it oc-curs within the reader as s/he interacts with written material. This section will con-sider the evidence that both the process and the resultant miscue patterns vary as afunction of a complex interaction among several variables.

Instructional method appears to be a major determinant of miscue patterns, atleast for readers in the first four grades (Cohen, 1974; Dank, 1976; DeLawter, 1975;Niles, Graham, & Winstead, 1977; Norton, 1976; Ogle, 1974). DeLawter (1975)analyzed the oral reading miscues of 169 second graders who had been instructed fortwo years by means of either a decoding emphasis approach or a meaning emphasisapproach. She found that the majority of miscues made by the group instructed withthe meaning emphasis approach were real words with little graphophonic similarityto the expected response, while the majority of miscues made by the decoding groupwere graphophonically similar nonwords. The overwhelming majority of all readers'miscues were syntactically acceptable, and about half were semantically acceptablefor both groups. Dank (1976) analyzed the oral reading miscues of 20 second graderstaught by either an integrated reading-language experience approach or an approachemphasizing letter-sound correspondences. The readers taught by the decoding ap-proach produced fewer omissions and more graphophonically similar nonword sub-situtions, while the readers in the language experience group produced a greater

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Miscue Analysis: A Critical Review 169

number of semantically acceptable miscues. Consistent with these findings, Ogle(1974) observed that first grade readers taught by a phonics method produced moresubstitution errors, while those taught by a whole word method produced more noresponse errors.

Norton (1976) reports that the miscues of readers in grade three taught by a syn-thetic phonic approach were characterized by the following: high graphophonicsimilarity; numerous nonword substitutions; few self-corrections; and few seman-tically acceptable errors. In contrast, the miscues of readers taught by an analyticeclectic approach were characterized as follows: few nonword substitutions; self-correction of approximately half of all errors, and errors that produced semanticallyacceptable sentences. Readers from both groups tended to produce syntactically ac-ceptable miscues.

Niles et al. (1977) present evidence that readers' miscue patterns are affected bythe presence or absence of teacher feedback during reading. Average readers ingrade four who received immediate teacher feedback following each unexpectedresponse produced a significantly greater percentage of graphophoriically similarmiscues than those who read without interruption. Further, readers who were inter-rupted produced a greater number of responses which changed the meaning of thetext than those who were not. Thus in addition to the variability in miscue patternswhich arises from different instructional programs, it is also possible that teacherfeedback patterns during instruction influence the miscue patterns observed duringtesting.

Collectively the results of these studies suggest that instructional method has asignificant effect on younger readers' miscues patterns. Specifically, those who aretaught by means of a code emphasis approach produce fewer no response miscues,fewer self-corrections, more graphophonically similar miscues and more nonwordsubstitutions, while those taught through a meaning emphasis approach producemore no response miscues, more self-corrections, more real word substitutions andfewer graphophonically similar miscues. Further, it appears that methods utilizingimmediate teacher feedback may result in miscue patterns similar to those producedby a code emphasis approach to reading instruction. While readers' tendency to pro-duce semantically acceptable miscues appears to be directly related to instructionalmethod, the evidence clearly indicates that most readers' miscues tend to be syn-tactically acceptable regardless of instructional method. Clearly many of the patternswhich previously appeared to reflect basic developmental trends are at least in part afunction of instructional method.

There is also evidence indicating that readers' miscue patterns vary as a functionof the interaction among the readers' skills and background, the nature of the writtenmaterial and the conditions surrounding its presentation (Brazee, 1976; Carlson,1970; Christie, 1977; K. Goodman, 1976; Y. Goodman, 1976; Kibby, 1979; Martellock,1971; Rousch, 1972; Thomas, 1975; Thornton, 1973).

Brazee (1976) found that the miscues produced by eighth graders reading bothexpository and narrative materials differed in seven of eighteen categories of miscueanalysis. Carlson (1970) reports that average readers in grade four produced fewersemantically acceptable miscues while reading content area materials than they didwhile reading basal selections. He also notes that the ratio of uncorrected to cor-rected miscues was much higher for the content area selections than for the basal

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

170 Journal of Reading Behavior

materials. Thornton (1973) suggests that the differences he observed in the miscuepatterns of fifth graders reading both fiction and nonfiction materials were actuallythe result of differences in difficulty arising from the authors' writing style. Christie(1977) found that seven and eight year old readers produced a higher percentage ofdetrimental miscues while reading a passage composed of syntactic structures whichappear late in language development than they did while reading a passage composedof structures frequently used by children this age. Thus it appears that differenttypes of material present readers with different problems, resulting in a variety ofmiscue patterns.

Thomas (1975) found that the tendency for an individual's substitutions to besyntactically and/or semantically acceptable depends upon the degree to which s/heis able to comprehend the material. Rousch (1972) observed that average readers ingrade four lacking prior conceptual knowledge of the material being read producedmore graphically similar miscues and were less aware of the need to correct theirunacceptable miscues than were readers with a higher level of conceptualawareness. Thus it appears that a reader's tendency to correct unacceptable errorsmay indicate that the material is presenting him/her with a heavy conceptual load.These studies suggest that reading materials present different readers with differentproblems, resulting in variation among their miscue patterns.

Thornton (1973) reports that fifth grade readers' miscue patterns varied ac-cording to whether or not there was a specifically stated purpose for reading.Menosky (1971) observed that miscues change qualitatively as a function of thelength of the passage being read. Readers in grades 2, 4, 6, and 8 produced a higherpercentage of totally unacceptable miscues on shorter (200 words) passages thanthey did on longer passages exceeding 300 words in length. Kibby (1979) used miscueanalysis procedures to analyze the oral reading errors of 46 fourth, fifth, sixth, andseventh grade disabled readers. Each subject read both a "difficult" and a "less dif-ficult" passage. While 76% of all readers were classified as weak in the use of gram-matical relationships on the difficult passage, 74% demonstrated strength in this areaon the less difficult passage. Thus it appears that readers' miscue patterns are also in-fluenced by passage length and difficulty, and the readers' purpose for reading.

In short, the evidence indicates that different materials present different readerswith different problems, and that readers' miscue patterns vary as a function of theparticular problem s/he encounters while reading a particular selection.

In conclusion, it appears that miscue patterns are not static, but that they vary asa function of a combination of many factors. Thus patterns which previously ap-peared to suggest general trends appear to vary as a result of a complex interactionamong factors such as the instructional method, the readers' background, skills, andpurpose for reading, and the specific nature of the written material. It is important tonote at least two of the possible implications of this observation. First, it is possiblethat miscue patterns as identified by standard miscue analysis procedures do not pro-vide an accurate reflection of the reading process. Alternatively, it is possible thatthe process is variable and that it therefore produces variable miscue patterns.

DISCUSSION

Proponents of miscue analysis assert that reading is a meaning seeking processand that miscues reflect that process in operation. The purpose of miscue analysis

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Miscue Analysis: A Critical Review 171

then is to determine the nature and relative effectiveness of an individual's meaningseeking strategies. The foregoing raises some concerns regarding the utility of theseprocedures and the assumptions underlying them.

Given the assumptions underlying miscue analysis it is possible to evaluate aparticular reader's processing strategies and to develop appropriate lessons to aid inthe development and refinement of effective strategies. However the question stillremains whether or not miscue analysis procedures do in fact identify the specificelements of a reader's miscues which reliably reflect his or her reading proficiency.Burke (1969) noted that readers could appear "to operate with proficient reading skillwhen gaining only minimal and superficial meaning." Further, it is noted in themanual of the Reading Miscue Inventory (Y. Goodman & Burke, 1972) that there aretimes when the reader's understanding of the material as determined by the RetellingScore does not complement the Comprehension Pattern profile. Specifically, thereare readers who demonstrate good understanding of the selection, but whose miscuepatterns indicate a large percentage of comprehension loss. By contrast, there arealso readers who demonstrate minimal understanding of the passage, but whosemiscues indicate a minimal loss in comprehension. The authors do not indicate thefrequency with which these patterns occur. One must conclude that miscue analysisprocedures are as yet unvalidated as a means of identifying the relative effectivenessof the strategies used by different readers as they process printed material.

Of further concern here is the issue of the variability both within and amongreaders' processing strategies as evidenced by their miscue patterns. Proponents ofmiscue analysis acknowledge the variability of both the reading process and its ac-companying miscue patterns (Burke, 1976a; Y. Goodman, 1976). Page (1970) notedthat,

Each reader,,. produced a unique form of the reading process witheach encounter with material of differing grade level. The patterns... are distinct enough from one another to suggest that the readingprocess is different for each subject with each variation inmaterial.

It has been demonstrated that miscue patterns vary as a function of several fac-tors, notably instructional method and the interaction between the readers'background, skills, and purpose for reading, and the structure and content of thewritten material. Miscue analysis procedures are not designed to account for thesesources of variation. Yet, standard procedures for the evaluation of miscues and thedevelopment of appropriate strategy lessons imply that both pattern and process arestatic (Burke, 1975; Y. Goodman & Burke, 1972; Y. Goodman, 1975). It must berecognized that at best readers' miscue patterns, as analyzed through these pro-cedures, are a reflection of the particular strategies employed by a particular readerto satisfy his/her purpose for reading a particular passage. A difficult passage at that,as standard procedures require that the reader be presented with material that is like-ly to be somewhat difficult. The exact nature of the resulting miscue patterns istherefore a function of the particular reading task a particular reading selectionpresents a particular reader. Accordingly, the observed miscue pattern may or maynot be representative of the strategies used by that particular reader to process otherprinted material.

The final point under consideration concerns the assumption that all readers br-

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

172 Journal of Reading Behavior

ing a highly developed language system to the task of reading (K. Goodman, 1973; Y.Goodman & Burke, 1972). Based on this assumption, miscues are interpreted as ifreaders share a common standard for what is acceptable language both with eachother and with the author. Thus when a reader produces miscue which suggest inef-fective reading strategies it is assumed that his/her language system is adequatelydeveloped, but that .for some reason s/he failed to use his/her knowledge of thelanguage while reading. Yet recent evidence suggests that language competencevaries considerably among readers and that reading proficiency is in fact related tolanguage competence (Vogel, 1974). Therefore, it must be considered that patternswhich standard procedures consider representative of ineffective strategies may infact be the result of differing standards of acceptability arising from deficiently ordifferently developed language systems in readers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recent promotion of miscue analysis has served the field of reading well. Thepopularization of miscue analysis has succeeded in bringing about an awareness ofreading as a language process, and in sensitizing people to the necessity for a methodof evaluation which will accurately reflect this process in operation. However, theexact nature of the relationship between oral reading errors, as analyzed by standardmiscue analysis procedures, and the reading process remains unclear. Further, it isunknown whether miscue.analysis succeeds in identifying the critical features ofreaders' oral reading performance which reveal their relative proficiency with thereading process. Accordingly, the current use of miscue analysis procedures as abasis for evaluation and planning in both research and instruction appears at best tobe premature.

There appears to be a critical need for additional research in the area of miscueanalysis. Generally there is a need to investigate the assumptions underlying miscueanalysis as a basis for the refinement and validation of procedures to analyzereaders' oral reading errors. It is important to note that the success of future researchin this area depends upon researchers' ability to conduct investigations which ac-count for the many sources of variance which appear to be operating in the produc-tion of miscues.

Until such time as miscue analysis has been more fully explicated through addi-tional empirical research it is recommended that the use of these procedures belimited to situations where it is possible to obtain repeated samples of a particularreader's miscues under a variety of predetermined conditions. The nature and con-tent of the reading selections should be varied with regard to each individual reader'sskills and background in an attempt to present the reader with a range of readingtasks and materials. An analysis of the miscues generated by a particular readerunder a variety of conditions may reveal any pervasive problems the reader mayhave as well as the particular conditions which present the reader with the greatestdifficulty.

Miscue analysis procedures are potentially very useful as both research in-struments and assessment devices. A major advantage of these procedures is that theanalysis is conducted under reading conditions similar to those encountered in mostclassrooms today. Thus it is promising as a method for evaluating the various interac-

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Miscue Analysis: A Critical Review 173

tions which comprise the "whole" of the reading process. It is therefore of utmostimportance that a continued effort be undertaken to bring about the changes whichappear to be essential for the realization of this potential.

FOOTNOTES

1 Requests for reprints should be addressed to the author at: 740 Bowling Green, Cortland, NY13045.

REFERENCES

ALLEN, P.D. A psycholinguistic analysis of the substitution miscues of selected oral readers ingrades two, four, and six and the relationships of these miscues io the reading process: Adescriptive study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1969.

ALLEN, P. D. Some general implications concerning specific taxonomy categories. In P. D.Allen & D. J. Watson (Eds.), Findings of research in miscue analysis: Classroomimplications. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Na-tional Institute of Education, National Council of Teachers of English, 1978.

ALLEN, P. D., & WATSON, D. J. (Eds.) Findings of research in miscue analysis: Classroomimplications. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Na-tional Institute of Education, National Council of Teachers of English, 1976.

AU, K. H. Analyzing oral reading errors to improve instruction. The Reading Teacher, 1977, 31,46-49.

BIEMILLER, A. J. The development of the use of graphic and contextual information aschildren learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly, 1970, 6, 75-96.

BRAZEE, P. E. A qualitative and quantitative description of eighth grade students' oral readingin both narrative and expository materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Northern Colorado, 1976.

BURKE, C. L. A psycholinguistic description of grammatical restructurings in the oral readingof a selected group of middle school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, WayneState University, 1969.

BURKE, C. L. Oral reading analysis: A view of the reading process. In W. D. Page (Ed.), Helpfor the reading teacher: New directions in research. Urbana, IL: National Conference onResearch in English, ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communications Skills, NationalInstitute of Education, 1975.

BURKE, C. L. Reading miscue research: A theoretical position. In P. D. Allen & D. J. Watson(Eds.), Findings of research in miscue analysis: Classroom implications. Urbana, IL: ERICClearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National Institute of Education, Na-tional Council of Teachers of English, 1976. (a)

BURKE, C. L. The three cue systems: #2—syntactic. In P. D. Allen & D. J. Watson (Eds.),Findings of research in miscue analysis: Classroom implications. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clear-inghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National Institute of Education, NationalCouncil of Teachers of English, 1976. (b)

BURKE. C. L., & GOODMAN, K. S. When a child reads: A psycholinguistic analysis.Elementary English, 1970, 47, 121-129.

CARLSON, K. L. A psycholinguistic description of selected fourth grade children reading avariety of contextual material. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State Universi-ty, 1970.

CHRISTIE, J. F. The effect of later appearing syntactic structures on seven- and eight-year-oldchildren's oral reading errors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont GraduateSchool, 1977.

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

174 Journal of Reading Behavior

CLAY, M. M. A syntactic analysis of reading errors. Journal of Verbal Learning and VerbalBehavior, 1988, 7, 434-438.

COHEN, A. S. Oral reading errors of first grade children taught by a code emphasis approach.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1974.

COOMBER, J. E. A pscyholinguistic analysis of oral reading errors made by good, average, andpoor readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1972.

DANK, M. E. A study of the relationship of miscues to the mode of formal reading instructionreceived by selected second graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMassachusetts, 1976.

DELAWTER, J. A. The relationship of beginning reading instruction and miscue patterns. In W.D. Page (Ed.), Help for the reading teacher: New directions in research. Urbana, IL: Na-tional Conference on Research in English, ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Com-munication Skills, National Institute of Education, 1975.

GOODMAN, K. S. A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English, 1965,42, 639-643.

GOODMAN, K. S. Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 1969, 5, 9-30.

GOODMAN, K. S. Behind the eye: What happens in reading. In K. S. Goodman & O. S. Niles,Reading process and program. Urbana, IL: Commission on the English Curriculum, Na-tional Council of Teachers of English, 1970.

GOODMAN, K. S. Miscues: Windows on the reading process. In K. S. Goodman (Ed.), Miscueanalysis: Applications to reading instruction. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Readingand Communication Skills, National Council of Teachers of English, 1973.

GOODMAN, K. S. What we know about reading. In P. D. Alien and D, J. Watson (Eds.).Findings of research in miscue analysis: Classroom Implications. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clear-inghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National Institute of Education, NationalCouncil of Teachers of English, 1976.

GOODMAN, K. S., & GOODMAN, Y. M. Learning about psycholinguistic processes by analyz-ing oral reading. Harvard Educational Review, 1977, 47, 317-333.

GOODMAN, Y. M. Reading strategy lessons: Expanding reading effectiveness. In W. D. Page(Ed.), Help for the reading teacher: New directions in research. Urbana, IL: National Con-ference on Research in English, ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and CommunicationSkills, National Institute of Education, 1975.

GOODMAN, Y. S. Developing reading proficiency. In P. D. Allen & D. J. Watson (Eds.),Findings of research in miscue analysis: Classroom implications. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clear-inghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National Institute of Education, NationalCouncil of Teachers of English, 1976.

GOODMAN, Y. M., & BURKE, C. L. Reading miscue inventory. New York: Macmillan, 1972.GREENE, B. H. L. A psycholinguistic analysis of the multiple attempts produceed in oral

reading by selected readers upon the single appearance of an item within a text and uponitems recurring throughout a text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State Univer-sity, 1974.

HOOD, J. Qualitative analysis of oral reading errors: The inter-judge reliability of scores.Reading Research Quarterly, 1975-76, 11, 577-598.

HUEY, E. B. The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968. (Firstpublished in 1908 by Macmillan.)

JENSEN, L. J. A psycholinguistic analysis of the oral reading behavior of selected proficient,average, and weak readers reading the same material. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Michigan State University, 1972.

KIBBY, M. W. Passage readability affects the oral reading strategies of disabled readers. TheReading Teacher, 1979, 32, 390-398.

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Miscue Analysis: A Critical Review 175

KOLERS, P. A. Three stages of reading. In H. Levin & J. P. Williams (Eds.), Basic studies onreading. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1970.

LEVINE, E. F. The relationship between three patterns of oral reading errors and specificreading strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1976.

MARTELLOCK, H. A. A psycholinguistic description of the oral and written language of aselected group of middle school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne StateUniversity, 1971.

MENOSKY, D. M. A psycholinguistic description of oral reading miscues generated during thereading of varying portions of text by selected readers from grades two, four, six andeight. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1971.

NILES, J. A., GRAHAM, R. T., & WINSTEAD, J. C. The effects of teacher feedback responseson children's oral reading performance. Paper presented at Twenty-second Annual Con-vention, International Reading Association, Miami, 1977.

NORTON, D. E. A comparison of the oral reading errors of high and low ability first and thirdgraders taught by two approaches—synthetic-phonic and analytic-eclectic. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1976.

OGLE, D. M. A study of the relationship of instructional methods to the oral reading errorsmade by first grade readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State Universi-ty, 1974.

PAGE, W. D. A psycholinguistic description of patterns of miscues generated by a proficientreader in second grade, an average reader in fourth grade, and an average reader in sixthgrade encountering basal reader selections ranging from pre-primer to sixth grade. Un-published doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1970.

PAGE, W. D. (Ed.). Help for the reading teacher: New directions in research. Urbana, IL: Na-tional Conference on Research in English, ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Com-munications Skills, National Institute of Education, 1975.

ROUSCH, P. D. A psycholinguistic investigation into the relationship between prior conceptualknowledge, oral reading miscues, silent reading, and post-reading performance. Un-published doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1972.

SMITH, E. G., GOODMAN, K. S., & MEREDITH, R. Language and thinking in the elementaryschool. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.

THOMAS, K. J. Syntactic/semantic acceptability and semantic similarity of oral reading errorsas functions of variation in attained comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,The University of Arizona, 1975.

THORNTON, M. F. A psycholinguistic description of purposive oral reading and its effect oncomprehension for subjects with different reading backgrounds. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Wayne State University, 1973.

VOGEL, S. A. Syntactic abilities in normal and dyslexic children. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 1974, 7, 103-109.

WEBER, R. M. A linguistic analysis of first grade reading errors. Reading Research Quarterly,1970, 5, 427-451. (a)

WEBER, R. M. First graders' use of grammatical context in reading. In H. Levin & J. P. Williams(Eds.), Basic studies on reading. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1970. (b)

at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on March 24, 2014jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from