Reading error analysis

A words-correct-per-minute score tells you how much a student reads. Error analysis tells you why the student loses points. Two students who both read 55 words correct per minute can have opposite profiles: one skips small words and endings, the other cannot decode any word with a vowel team. They need different teaching.

Error analysis uses the same 1-minute passages you already give for fluency, so it adds a few minutes of scoring, not a new test. For scoring the passage itself, see how to calculate WCPM and accuracy. For where this step fits in planning, see the reading intervention pillar.

What you need before you start

• Two or three unpracticed passages at the level you are measuring, with a copy for you to mark.
• A way to record what the student says. A phone recording lets you check your marks afterward.
• An error log with columns for the word in the text, what the student said and the error type.
• About 10 minutes per student for reading and scoring, plus 10 minutes to sort the errors.

Step-by-step reading error analysis

Step 1: Record exactly what the student says

Above each misread word, write what the student actually said, not just a slash. "Stained" read as "stand" and "stained" read as "stay" are different errors. Example: write "stand" above "stained," "jump" above "jumped," and a caret with "the" where the student added a word.

Step 2: Mark the error type

Use a consistent set of codes. These are the types most teachers track:

Check your measure's manual for its exact counting rules. Example: "The dog jumped" read as "The dog jump... jumped" is a self-correction, not an error.

Step 3: Collect enough errors

One passage rarely has enough errors to show a pattern. Aim for at least 25 errors across 2 or 3 passages, or across two sessions. For a student with high accuracy, use a slightly harder passage for the analysis only. Example: a student with 4 errors per passage needs 6 or more passages, or a passage one grade higher, to show a pattern.

Step 4: Sort substitutions by the part of the word that broke

For each substitution, compare the printed word with what the student said. Look at the beginning, middle (usually the vowel) and end of the word. Example: "stand" for "stained" keeps the beginning and end but misses the vowel team "ai." "Jump" for "jumped" misses the ending. "Horse" for "house" keeps the first letter and guesses from it.

Step 5: Group the errors into patterns

Tally the errors by pattern: short vowels, vowel teams, r-controlled vowels, endings (-ed, -s, -ing), multisyllable words, small function words, irregular words. Example tally: vowel teams 11, endings 6, multisyllable 5, other 3. The largest group is the first teaching target.

Step 6: Check whether errors change meaning

Note whether each error changes the meaning of the sentence and whether the student self-corrected the ones that did. A student who reads "horse" for "house" and keeps going is not monitoring meaning. Self-correcting meaning-changing errors is a skill that can be taught and measured on its own. Example: 3 of 9 meaning-changing errors self-corrected.

Step 7: Turn the pattern into a plan

Pick one or two patterns. Teach them explicitly, practice them in words and then in connected text, and monitor them with a short pattern probe alongside the passage probe. Example: vowel-team lessons 4 days a week, a 20-word vowel-team list every 2 weeks and a weekly passage probe.

A note on guessing from pictures and first letters

Some older error coding systems sort errors by whether they make sense, sound right or look right, and treat a meaningful substitution as a good strategy. A structured literacy approach reads the same error differently. When "horse" is read for "house," the useful finding is that the student did not decode the vowel team "ou." Teach the student to look through the whole word. Note whether errors preserve meaning, because that tells you about comprehension monitoring, but plan decoding instruction from the letter pattern that broke. The structured literacy vs balanced literacy page compares the two approaches.

Worked example: Andre, grade 4

Andre is a fictional fourth grader. All numbers are illustrations.

October 2. Andre reads three unpracticed grade 4 passages for 1 minute each: 72 words attempted with 9 errors, 75 with 10 errors, 70 with 8 errors. His median is 63 words correct per minute; accuracy runs 86% to 89%. Across the three passages he makes 27 errors.

Error log (excerpt).

Tally of all 27 errors.

Andre self-corrected 2 of 14 meaning-changing errors.

Plan. Vowel teams first (ai, ay, ea, ee, oa, ou, ow), taught in word chains and then decodable passages, 30 minutes, 4 days a week. Endings get 3 minutes of daily practice in sentences. Multisyllable work starts once vowel teams are at 90% on the pattern probe.

Measurement: probes, frequency and a filled-in data sheet

Use oral reading fluency as the general measure, given weekly on one new grade-level passage. Add a pattern probe every 2 weeks: 20 words with the target pattern, half real and half made-up, scored as words correct. Record both on the reading fluency data sheet, and keep a running tally of error types so you can see the pattern shrink.

The pattern probe moved first, then accuracy, then rate. That order is typical when decoding is the barrier. If the pattern probe rose and passage accuracy did not, the next step would be more practice applying the pattern in connected text.

For an IEP, a matching goal might read: "Given unpracticed grade 4 passages, Andre will read 90 words correct per minute with at least 95% accuracy, measured weekly, using the median of 3 passages at each benchmark." The template is the unpracticed passage goal, and the vowel-team word list goal covers the pattern probe. Check the wording in the goal checker.

Common mistakes

• Weak: Marking errors with a slash only. Better: Write what the student said, so you can see which part of the word broke.
• Weak: Analyzing one passage with 6 errors. Better: Collect 25 or more errors across passages before naming a pattern.
• Weak: "Andre needs decoding." Better: "Andre misreads vowel teams (12 of 27 errors) and drops -ed endings (7 of 27)."
• Weak: Praising a meaningful guess and moving on. Better: Note it, then prompt the student to look through the whole word and reread.
• Weak: Ignoring self-corrections. Better: Count them; a rising self-correction rate shows the student is starting to monitor.
• Weak: Rechecking only WCPM. Better: Track the target pattern too, so you know whether teaching reached the skill.

Tools and next steps

The reading IEP goals library has templates for each pattern, and the diagnostic reading assessment guide shows how error analysis fits with a phonics survey and spelling inventory. For how to correct errors during lessons, see the correction procedure for reading intervention. Teaching ideas for each pattern are on the phonics interventions page.

Federal rules require the IEP to state how progress on each goal will be measured,^[1] and the National Center on Intensive Intervention describes this kind of diagnostic look at errors as the way to decide how to adapt an intervention that is not working.^[2]

Frequently asked questions

Use it in IEP Atlas

• IEP goal checker
• Reading IEP goals
• Oral reading fluency measurement guide
• Reading fluency data sheet
• Vowel-team and r-controlled word list goal template

Related guides

• Reading intervention for students with IEPs: assess, group, teach, monitor
• IEP goal examples for reading
• Error correction routines in reading intervention
• How to calculate WCPM and accuracy
• Diagnostic reading assessment after screening
• Tier 2 vs Tier 3 reading intervention

Sources

1. 34 CFR §300.320: Definition of individualized education program, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
2. Diagnostic Data, National Center on Intensive Intervention

Written and checked by the IEP Atlas editorial team under our editorial policy. This guide describes general practice and federal rules. It is not legal advice; your state may add requirements, and the IEP team makes the decisions for each student.