| Scope and Method of Study. This study examined the differences at reading ranges 4.0-6.0 and 5.0-7.0 between the number of errors of each word recognition error types (substitution, mispronunciation, words aided after five seconds, omission, and insertion) made by secondary disabled readers at Level I (91-94 per cent word recognition) and Level II (less than 91 per cent word recognition) and developmental elementary readers at Level I (91-94 per cent word recognition) and Level II (less than 91 per cent word recognition). This study also compared the number of word recognition error types made on eleven parts of speech (proper noun, noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, adjective, conjunction, article, preposition, interjection, and contraction) of the textual stimulus by secondary disabled readers and developmental elementary readers at Levels I and II.;After screening ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade students in a public school in Aurora, Colorado and elementary students in the third, fourth, and fifth grades in public schools in Lawton, Oklahoma, and Aurora, Colorado, a final sample of twenty-three disabled secondary students and twenty-three developmental elementary students was chosen. All readers evidenced an instructional range of 4.0-6.0 on the Standard Reading Inventory. Errors made on extended passages from the Stories of Stuever (Revised) and passages developed by Johnson and the Oklahoma State University Reading Laboratory were the basis for the analysis.;Findings and Conclusions. Although some significant values were evidenced at the .05 level, no differences were found to be consistent between readers. At Level I on passages with readability levels of 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 elementary developmental readers made significantly more errors in mispronunciations and in mispronunciation/nouns. At Level II on passages with readability levels of 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0, elementary developmental readers made significantly more errors in mispronunciations, substitution/pronouns, substitution/adjectives, mispronunciation/adjectives, omission/articles, and omissions/conjunctions. The findings lend support to the contention that reading is a developmental process. |
