READ 693
Clinician: Laura Burnette
Tutee: Brian Cohn




Name of Clinician: Laura Burnette
Name of Tutee: Brian Cohn
Age: 7
Grade: 2

2009
An occupational therapist evaluated Brian in
November of 2009 due to his lack of clear hand
dominance and use of a mature grip on
utensils.
The testing reported a delay in his grasping skills
and that he neurologically prefers the right side, but
his challenges with the trigger thumb he was born
with has caused him to use his left side as well.
 Occupational therapy was suggested in order for
him to increase his success in school and
independence with tasks.


2010
Brian was tested by Riverpoint Psychiatric
Associates in December of 2010 and their
evaluation was that he may have some slight
delays with his handwriting and overall
handedness based on his medical history, but
that therapy was not necessary. The doctor did
recommend that Brian may benefit from
meeting with a reading specialist.

2011
Brian was tested by Speech, Language, and
Literacy Evaluators at the Children’s Hospital
of the King’s Daughters in April 2011 and
suggestions include:



increased fluency training
multiple readings of continuous text
reading text with a high accuracy rate
2011
reading material three to four times for optimal
benefit
 multiple readings of single words and phrases
 arranging for short, frequent periods of fluency
practice
 incentives for reading practice
 concrete measures of progress






2011
Brian’s PALS test scores show that his accuracy
level is at 96% for the First Grade Oral Reading in
Context assessment.
He had a perfect score for beginning/ending
sounds and CVC short vowel sounds.
He is strong with digraphs, blends, CVCs, and rand l- influenced words.
His PALS scores indicate that he struggles with
long vowel sounds and nasals.
His DRA level (as reported by his teacher in Fall
2011) was 16 and the benchmark was 18.


2011
An optometrist evaluated Brian in May of 2011
and concluded that Brian needs extra time
while working on assignments and that time
pressure could cause lowered levels of
comprehension. He stated that “extra time on
tests, written class work, and reading
assignments is essential to his overall
performance.”
Brian was identified as intellectually gifted in
July 2011.


2012
Brian began seeing a reading specialist on a
regular basis in January 2012.
Brian began wearing glasses in February 2012.

Elementary Reading Attitude Survey:
Recreational Reading
Happiest
• Getting a book for a present.
Slightly Smiling
•
•
•
•
Mildly Upset
• Reading on a rainy Saturday.
• Spending free time reading a book.
Very Upset
• Reading for fun at home.
• Reading instead of playing.
• Reading during summer vacation.
Reading in school during free time.
Starting a new book.
Going to a bookstore.
Reading different kinds of books.

Elementary Reading Attitude Survey:
Academic Reading
Happiest
• Learning from a book.
Slightly Smiling
• Reading school books.
• Taking a reading test.
*Brian inserted a new
identifier (a squiggle).
• When a teacher asks questions about what
you read.
• Reading in school.
• When it is time for reading in class.
• Stories you read in reading class.
• Reading out loud in class.
Mildly Upset
• Reading workbook pages and
worksheets.
• Using a dictionary.
Very Upset
Analytical Reading Inventory Profile Record: Reader
Interview


Brian identified his favorite author as Melanie
Watt and named her Chester and Scaredy Squirrel
books as his favorites. He also wrote about Library
Mouse and Stink.
Reading habits:




Looking at the book to see if it is the right level.
Skipping unknown words.
Using the dictionary for unknown words.
Advantage to being a good reader is to understand
everything.

Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
Graded Word Lists:
Pre-test
Level
Number Correct
(out of 20)
Percentage
Primer
19
95
1
16
80
2
18
90
3
10
50

Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
Graded Word Lists:
Post-test
Level
Number Correct
(out of 20)
Percentage
Primer
19
95
1
20
100
2
15
75
3 *Brian chose to
4 (out of 9)
44
stop the assessment
after number 9.
Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
 Graded Word Lists:
Form A, Primer
Word in Text
funny
Miscue
fun
Graphophonicall
y Similar
*I *M *F
(word level)
IM
Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
 Graded Word Lists:
Form A, Level 1
Word in Text
Miscue
kind
rocket
ready
story
know
rock
read
store
Graphophonicall
y Similar
*I *M *F
(word level)
I
IM
IM
IM
Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
 Graded Word Lists:
Form A, Level 2
Word in Text
Miscue
instead
trunk
inseed
truck
Graphophonica
lly Similar
*I *M *F
(word level)
I F
I F
Analytical Reading
Inventory Results:
 Graded Word Lists:
Form A, Level 3
Word in
Text
Miscue
written
written
(pronounc
ed I with
a long I
sound)
bet
I
F
patinent
I
F
penage
F
authimet
M
bent
patient
manage
arithmeti
c
bush
gingerbre
ad
ill
alarm
bice
gingerbea
n
I’ll
amarm
Graphop
honically
Similar
*I *M *F
(word
level)
I M F
I
I M
I M F
I
F

Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
Form A Reader’s Passages:
Level
Word
Recognition
Comprehension
Preprimer
Independent
Independent
Primer
Independent
Instructional
Level 1
Instructional
Instructional
Level 2
Instructional
Independent
Level 3
Frustration
Frustration


Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
Form A, Preprimer: Word Recognition: Independent,
Comprehension: Independent
Analysis:






Brian’s prior knowledge/prediction was appropriate and used
the visual cue from the picture on the page. He used the first
two sentences to make a possible prediction.
Brian did not have any miscues. He made one self-correction,
which was after he had a miscue and he repeated reading to
make the self-correction.
He read fluently and at a good pace.
He was able to retell the main parts of the story.
For his comprehension questions, he answered them all
satisfactorily.
Brian’s emotional status was confident.


Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
Form A, Primer: Word Recognition: Independent,
Comprehension: Instructional
Analysis:






Brian’s initial prior knowledge/prediction was appropriate and
used the visual cue from the picture on the page. He used the first
two sentences to make a possible prediction.
Brian did not have any miscues. He made three self-corrections:
the first after an omission and repeated reading, the second
immediately after a substitution, and the third after an omission
and repeated reading.
He read at a fairly fluently and at a reasonable pace.
He was able to retell some parts of the story in order.
For his comprehension questions, he answered most of them
satisfactorily. He answered incorrectly to both PIT (puts
information together) questions.
Brian’s emotional status was confident.
Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
 Form A, Level 1: Word Recognition:
Instructional,Graphophonicall
Comprehension:
Instructional
Syntacticall Semantic
Word in Text Miscue
y Similar
*I *M *F
(word level)
for
and
for
ready
This
to
to
to
really
The
I
I
F
y
Change in Meaning (CM)
Acceptable No Change in Meaning
Unacceptab (NCM)
le
(sentence
level)
U
U
U
U
A
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM


Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
Form A, Level 1: Word Recognition: Instructional,
Comprehension: Instructional
Analysis:






Brian’s initial prior knowledge/prediction was appropriate and used the
visual cue from the picture on the page. He used the first two sentences to
make a possible prediction.
None of Brian’s miscues changed the meaning of the sentences. Most were
syntactically unacceptable. Brian made two self-corrections while reading
the story. Only two of his miscues were graphophonically similar, both in
the initial parts of the word, one at the final part.
He read at a fairly fluently and at a reasonable pace.
He was able to retell some parts of the story in order.
For his comprehension questions, he answered most of them satisfactorily.
He answered incorrectly to both PIT (puts information together) questions.
Brian’s emotional status was confident.

Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
Form A, Level 2: Word Recognition:
Instructional, Comprehension: Independent
Word in Text
Miscue
Graphophonically
Similar
*I *M *F
(word level)
Syntactically
Acceptable
Unacceptable
(sentence level)
Semantic
Change in Meaning
(CM)
No Change in
Meaning (NCM)
struck
can
begin
My
struggled
could
beginning
The
I
I
IM
U
A
A
U
CM
NCM
NCM
NCM
like
the
wind
yelling
now
to
(omission)
well
yet
know
I
I
M F
U
U
U
U
U
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM


Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
Form A, Level 2: Word Recognition: Instructional, Comprehension:
Independent
Analysis:






Brian’s initial prior knowledge/prediction was appropriate. He mentioned that the
story does not have a picture so he does not know if the baseball star is a boy or girl,
so he decided to call her a girl. He used the first two sentences to make a possible
prediction.
Brian’s miscues all changed the meaning in half of the sentences, but did not in the
other half. Over half of his miscues were in the last two sentences of the story. Most
were syntactically unacceptable. Brian made two self-corrections while reading the
story. Six of his miscues were graphophonically similar, five in the initial parts of
the word, two in the medial parts, and one at the final part.
He read at a fairly fluently and at a reasonable pace. This was despite the fact that he
had eleven miscues and six self-corrections.
Brian’s retelling had a few details but was in disorder and showed signs that he did
not comprehend it.
For his comprehension questions, he answered all of them satisfactorily.
Brian’s emotional status was confident.

Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
Form A, Level 3: Word Recognition: Frustration, Comprehension:
Word
in Text
Miscue
Graphophonically
Syntactically
Semantic
Frustration
Similar
Acceptable
Change in Meaning
shined
easily
grew
Boxer
to
explore
grew
He
it
cold
damp
fearful
candle
held
flame
candle
match
out
finally
held
low
growl
recognized
get
shinned
eerily
grow
Becker
the
explored
growl
It
the
cool
drump
fearless
camera
heard
flam
and
cave
march
off
finished
head
loud
grol
readed
go
*I *M *F
(word level)
Unacceptable
(sentence level)
I M F
I
F
I
F
I
F
I
I M
I
F
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
A
A
U
U
A
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
I
F
I
F
I
I M
I
F
I
I
F
I
F
I
(CM)
No Change in
Meaning (NCM)
CM
CM
NCM
NCM
CM
NCM
CM
CM
CM
NCM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
NCM
CM
CM
NCM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
NCM


Analytical Reading Inventory Results:
Form A, Level 3: Word Recognition: Frustration, Comprehension:
Frustration
Analysis:






Brian’s initial prior knowledge/prediction was appropriate. He used the
first two sentences to make a possible prediction.
Brian’s miscues all changed the meaning in half of the sentences, but did
not in the other half. Most were syntactically unacceptable. Six of his
miscues were graphophonically similar, five in the initial parts of the
word, two in the medial parts, and one at the final part. Brian made two
self-corrections while reading the story.
He read at a fairly fluently and at a reasonable pace. This was despite the
fact that he had 25 miscues and two self-corrections.
Brian’s retelling had a few details but was in disorder and showed signs
that he did not comprehend it.
For his comprehension questions, he answered all of them satisfactorily
with the exception of the two RIF (retells in facts) questions.
Brian’s emotional status was slightly nervous.
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test
 Visual-Auditory Learning:
Brian had 27 total errors during the test, creating a
raw score of 107.






Brian enjoys reading for pleasure.
When he gets to words he doesn’t recognize, he
identifies words based on initial and final sounds.
Brian will continue reading after guessing words.
When asked, he can summarize what he read with
or without errors in reading.
He comprehends literal and figurative language.
He does not show frustration when he misses
words.
Brian expressed an interest in working on his
fluency skills.







Reminders to chunk words
Questioning before, during, and after reading
Tracking
Introduction of several types of books
Utilization of word building skills during
games
Compound word building
Matching Word Parts to Build Words (from
Improving Reading text)







Work on identifying medial sounds
Defining fluency with Brian.
Identifying qualities of a fluent reader.
Creating goals for increasing Brian’s fluency.
Implementation of the Reading Progress Chart
Implementation of the Reading Fluency Rubric
Attempt to focus Brian less on speed and more
on accuracy.