1. John E. McEneaney Oakland University Rochester, MI
Administering and Interpreting an Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) Part 3: Diagnostic Analysis
John E. McEneaney
Oakland University
Rochester, MI

2. IRI Diagnostic Analysis
You should be able to …
Generate hypotheses about relative strengths and weaknesses in word recognition and comprehension.
Recognize implausible hypotheses based on IRI data.
Justify a diagnostic analysis that is based on IRI data.
Relate hypotheses about reading levels and relative strengths and weaknesses based on IRI data.

3. Review of Reading Levels
Word Recognition
Percentage
Comprehension
Independent
99-100%
90-100%
Instructional
95-98%
75-89%
Instructional or
Frustrational
91-94%
51-74%
Frustration
90% or less
50% or less

4. Informal Reading Inventory
Student: Jason
Grade: 7
Age: 14
Word
List (A)
Oral Reading (Form A)
Silent Reading (B)
LST
Overall
RLs
Word Recognition
Comprehension
Comp
Level % RL 5
100 80 6 55 85 7 95 96 40 90 8 82 70 9 50 65
Review of puzzling IRI data: What might explain this?

5. Word List Coding Example
This example illustrates one approach to coding word list errors (in this case, using dictionary pronunciation symbols). Most teachers and reading specialists use a more informal approach. Whatever coding scheme is used with word lists, the pronunciation of the reader should be clear.

6. Miscue Coding Key

7. Passage Coding Example

8. Comprehension Coding Key
Partial credit (½ pt) is also sometimes awarded.

9. Melissa Gordon Example IRI Levels Miscue Analysis Comprehension Word Attack (handout)

10. Melissa Gordon Example: Levels

11. Melissa Gordon Example: Miscues
Miscues by type and whether or not they change meaning.

12. Melissa Gordon Example: Comprehension

13. Melissa Gordon Example: Phonic & Structural Analysis

14. Melissa Gordon Example: Summary Interpretation
Most frequent miscues were substitutions and refusals to pronounce. Melissa seems reluctant to take risks in word recognition. Melissa showed attention to word beginnings but not middles or endings both in the lists and the oral passages. Although she had several problems with single vowels no one vowel was indicated. Her guesses are frequently graphophonically similar and are often syntactically and semantically acceptable. Her greatest difficulty in comprehension involved inference and cause/effect. She missed none of the main idea and sequence questions and only a few detail and vocabulary questions.
Melissa's Independent, Instructional, and Frustration reading levels are grades 1, 2, and 3 respectively. A listening level was not determined since the listening drop-off was not established. Melissa’s listening level suggests, however, that she may be underachieving in reading.
Melissa's pattern of miscues that do not change meaning and her good comprehension suggest she adopts a more top-down approach to her reading although her weaknesses on cause/effect and inference questions suggests she may not be processing text deeply enough.

15. IRI Diagnostic Analysis
Can you …
Generate hypotheses about relative strengths and weaknesses in word recognition and comprehension ?
Recognize implausible hypotheses based on IRI data?
Justify a diagnostic analysis that is based on IRI data?
Relate hypotheses about reading levels and relative strengths and weaknesses based on IRI data?