College of Education

Reader Profile Report

Reader: Andrew Assessments and report completed by Claire

Straub
Grade: 3rd

Date of Assessments: 9/11/19 & 10/2/19 Date of Report: 4/28/19

1. Overview of reader interview and background information:

Garret is a 3rd grade student. He lives with his father, mother, and older brother. He says that his mom
takes him and his brother to Barnes and Noble or the library to buy books. He enjoys reading nonfiction
books about animals, but also enjoys reading Pokémon books at school. He also prefers chapter books
with some pictures to traditional picture books. He expressed that he likes to read but mostly reads for
school. He understands that reading is important to get a job or drive.

Andrew was chosen for a reader profile because his mom expressed concern about his oral reading
fluency and accuracy. She also shared that reading is uncomfortable for him and he can get upset when
he struggles to read a word.

2. Informal Decoding Inventory

The Informal Decoding Inventory (McKenna & Stahl, 2015) assesses skills used when decoding words.
The assessment begins with short vowels and continues in the sequential order in which the phonemic
patterns are usually learned. The assessment is given in two parts. Part one assesses a student’s ability
to decode single syllable words and part two assesses skills used to decode multisyllabic words. During
each part of the assessment, the student reads twenty words comprised of ten real words and ten
nonsense words for each phonemic pattern. Mastery of a section is achieved if the student can correctly
read at least eight of the real words and seven of the nonsense words. Once the teacher identifies can
identify key areas for targeted instruction, the assessment is discontinued. The results of the inventory
are as follows:

Part I Real words Nonsense words Mastery

yes/no

Short Vowels 10/10 9/10 Yes

Consonant Blends and Digraphs 10/10 10/10 Yes

r-Controlled Vowel Patterns 9/10 9/10 Yes

Vowel Consonant–e 10/10 7/10 Yes

Vowel Teams 9/10 9/10 Yes

Part II Real words Nonsense words Mastery

yes/no

Compound Words 10/10 9/10 Yes

Closed Syllables 9/10 7/10 Yes

Open Syllables 9/10 3/10 No

Vowel Consonant–e Syllables 10/10 10/10 Yes

R-Controlled Syllables 8/10 7/10 Yes

Vowel Team Syllables 10/10 5/10 No

Summary: Andrew achieved mastery of all single syllable phonemic patterns as assessed in part I of the
Informal Decoding Inventory. He also demonstrated mastery in most of multisyllabic words patterns for
real and nonsense words. The assessment shows that he requires review of r-controlled and vowel team
syllables in and would benefit from systematic instruction with words containing open syllables. The
results also show that he more proficient at reading real words than nonsense words.

2. Spelling Inventory

The Elementary Spelling Inventory (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2016) assesses a student’s
ability to spell words according to spelling patterns and stages. The student is asked to write a series of
words chosen to display the student’s knowledge and understanding of spelling features (short vowels,
long vowels, blends, etc.) The words gradually become more difficult to spell as the list progresses. It is
administered in a similar fashion as a spelling test, except the child has not studied these specific words
beforehand.

Features Total Correct Mastery yes/no

Initial/Final Consonants 7/7 Yes

Short Vowels 5/5 Yes

 Digraphs 6/6 Yes

Blends 7/7 Yes

Long Vowels 5/5 Yes

Other Vowels 6/7 Yes

Inflected Endings 4/5 Yes

Syllable Junctures 5/5 Yes

Unaccented Final Syllables 4/5 Yes

Harder Suffixes 4/5 Yes

Bases or Roots 1/5 No

Total Feature Points 54/62

Total Words Spelled Correctly 19/25

Spelling Stage Middle Derivational Relations

Summary: Andrew is a strong speller. He has mastered the emergent, letter name, within word patterns,
and syllables and affixes spelling patterns. Andrew stage of development is currently the middle
derivational relations stage. In this stage Andrew is learning to use sematic relationships between words.
He is working to understand that words are derived from a common root or base word to spell them. He
will also continue to learn and notice more derivational relationships to help him spell them
conventionally.

3. Informal Reading Inventory

The Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI-6; Leslie & Caldwell, 2017) is an informal reading inventory used
to estimate the student’s instructional reading level. The student is presented with a series of texts,
increasing in difficulty. The student reads the text and the examiner records the any miscues. The
student asked to retell and answer explicit and implicit questions about the text to determine their level
of comprehension. The assessment continues until the examiner identifies the highest level at which the
child meets the instructional level criteria. The instructional level is defined as the highest-grade level at
which they can successfully read with sufficient word reading and comprehension accuracy to
meaningfully learn from the text.

The results of the QRI post-tutoring are as follows:

 Passage Name/Level Word Recognition Level Comprehension Level (total
(percent of words read correct/total # of questions)
correctly)

The Pig Who Learned 98% 83%

to Read / QRI grade:
Independent (> 97%) Instructional (70%-89%)
Primer

The Bear and the 98% 66%

Rabbit / QRI grade: 1st
Independent (> 97%) Frustration (< 70%)

Interpretation:

An estimate of the Andrew ’s instructional level, the highest level at which the text is instructional for
the reader in both word recognition and comprehension, is grade one. The assessment shows that
Andrew is an accurate reader. At both text levels, his word recognition is consistently within the
independent level and was able to retell both texts using a narrative structure to organize his ideas. His
ability to accurately answer explicit and implicit text dependent questions decreases as the text
complexity increases. Andrew will benefit from intense intervention with comprehension instruction.

4. Multidimensional Reading Fluency

Reading fluency is characterized by three criteria: accuracy, rate, and expression. The reader’s fluency
was assessed using multiple texts levels, including an expository text at the reader’s instructional level
(from the QRI, above) and an expository text at the reader’s grade level (from the QRI, above). Accuracy
was scored using the QRI guidelines. The assessment administrator scored reading rate using the words
correct per minute (WCPM) score, which was interpreted using published oral reading fluency norms
(Hasbrouk & Tindal, 2017). In order to score aspects of fluency related to expressive reading, we used
the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Zutell & Rasinksi, 1991; adapted by McKenna & Stahl, 2015).

Text 1: Instructional Level Text from the QRI:

Passage Name / 1st Air Fluency Rubric Ratings

grade level
Expression and 2/4
Words Correct Per 118 wcpm Volume
Minute
Phrasing 3/4
Word Recognition 95%
Accuracy Level Smoothness 3/4
 Pace 4/4

Total Score on 12/16

Multidimensional
Fluency Rubric

Text 2: Grade Level Text from the QRI:

Passage Name /1st Cats: Lions and Tigers Fluency Rubric Ratings
grade level in Your House
Expression and 2/4
Words Correct Per 141 wcpm Volume
Minute
Phrasing 3/4
Word Recognition 95%
Accuracy Level Smoothness 2/4

Pace 3/4

Total Score on 10/16

Multidimensional
Fluency Rubric

Interpretation: According to oral reading fluency norms, a student in the beginning of third grade should
be able to accurately read 71 words correctly per minute. Andrew is currently reading over 100 words
correctly per minute in texts at the third-grade level. He is reading in the 90th percentile based on the
average rate of words read per minute correctly on grade level materials. When reading, Andrew
primarily reads three- or four-word phrase groups. When he is comfortable with the text, as shown with
the independent level text, he is able to read with some expression. At a third-grade level text, Andrew
reads with little to no expression.

5. Elementary Reading Attitude Survey:

The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990) comprised of twenty statements
about reading. The first ten statements reference recreational reading and the second ten statements
address academic reading. After each statement, there are four pictures of Garfield, each depicting a
different emotional state. Students are asked to circle the Garfield picture that corresponds to their
emotional response to the given statement. Their responses are scored to interpret indicate the
student’s attitude towards reading.

Raw Score Percentile

Recreational Reading 29 45th
 Academic Reading 33 58th
Total (Recreational + 62 64th
Academic)

Summary: The results show that Andrew favors academic reading over recreational reading. When
looking at his specific responses to each section, he is excited about getting new books at the store and
starting new books. He does not enjoy reading different kinds of books or reading instead of playing. His
responses to academic reading he likes reading at school and learning from books but does not like to
read out loud in class.

Summary of Results

The assessment results for both the Informal Decoding Inventory and Spelling Inventory highlight
Andrew ’s strength in decoding and spelling variety of multisyllabic words. He has mastered all the single
syllable patterns in part I and most of the multisyllabic patterns in part two. Andrew can spell single and
multisyllabic words with different within word patterns. Andrew ’s responses on the Elementary Reading
Attitude Survey show that he prefers academic reading to recreational reading and also gets excited to
read new books. The survey also showed that he does not like to read different genres and is
uncomfortable reading out loud in class.

The results of the Informal Reading Inventory place Andrew at a first-grade reading level. He was able to
read both the primer and first grade texts at an independent level. He was also able retell the stories
accurately. Although Andrew ’s reading demonstrates a strong ability to read with accuracy, he was
unable to answer the explicit and implicit questions about the first-grade text accurately, placing him at
a first-grade instructional level. This means that Andrew was could use additional support in order to
meaningfully learn and apply comprehension strategies as he read the text. His Multidimensional
Fluency Rating shows that Andrew reads accurately and in three to four word phrases consistently but
he uses little expression as he reads.

Instructional Recommendations

Systematic decoding/encoding through interactive word work

The assessment results of the Informal Decoding Inventory and Spelling Inventory shows that Andrew
needs systematic review of r-controlled and vowel team syllables in and would benefit from systematic
instruction with words containing open syllables in multisyllabic words. This review and intervention
should take place in a small group twice per week. Using Word Sorts (McKenna & Stahl, 2015) would
help Andrew continue to identify more derivational relationships between multisyllabic words. Word
Sorts are a spelling-based intervention to teach students how to decode different types of words.
Students are given list of words and asked to sort them. This intervention can be done using a closed
sort, where students are given the categories, and open sorts where students must determine their own
categories for the list of words. Andrew should practice the following patterns weekly:

 r-controlled syllables
 vowel team syllables
 open syllables

Explicit strategy instruction – small group 1:1

 Based on the results of the Informal Reading Inventory, Andrew would benefit from explicit
comprehension strategy instruction (McKenna & Stahl, 2015). This intervention should take place in
either a small group at least three times a week. This intervention involves teaching the student what
the strategy is, how to use the strategy, and when and why the strategy is most useful. This intervention
begins with explicit teacher modeling and strategy instruction and provide guided practice before
student practice the strategy independently. The goal of this intervention is for students to internalize
comprehension processes to help them learn meaningfully from reading.

Repeated reading for fluency and expression

To improve expression during oral reading, Andrew needs oral reading fluency practice. This practice can
also help to address his responses about reading out loud in class from the Elementary Reading
Attitudes Survey. He would benefit from a repeated reading approach (McKenna & Stahl, 2015). This
approach consists of four flexible steps repeated consistently and weekly. The flexible steps are the
reader reads a new text with minimal assistance, the teacher provides feedback on the accuracy and
expression of the child’s reading, the teacher and reader work together to set a goal for the next reading
of the text, and reader re-reads the text, trying to incorporate the tutor’s feedback. This cycle continues
multiple times until the reader can comfortably read the text with accuracy, appropriate rate, phrasing,
and expression. The teacher can use various methods to support the student’s oral reading fluency and
to provide explicit feedback. Some strategies the teacher can use are echo reading, choral reading,
alternated reading, and modeling of code-based word attack strategies.

References
Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2016). Words their way: Word study for

phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Dougherty, K. A., & McKenna, M. C. (2015). Assessment for Reading Instruction (Third). New York, NY:

Guilford.

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J.S. (2017). Qualitative reading inventory-6. Boston, MA: Pearson.

McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, K.A.D. (2015). Assessment for reading instruction (3rd edition).

Guilford: New York.

Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2015). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: a handbook.

London: Routledge.

Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.

Roswell, F. G., Chall. J. S., Curtis, M. E., & Kearns G. (2005). Diagnostic Assessments of Reading

(DAR)(2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading

fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 211-217.