The purpose of this study was to examine differences in the effectiveness of two graduate teacher education programs in reading assessment, one group using the Reading Miscue Inventory and the other using one of its simplified forms, the Reading Appraisal Guide. The main question that is answered in this study is whether it is more effective for teachers to be given training in the Reading Miscue Inventory, or is training in the Reading Appraisal Guide sufficient to enable teachers to carry out competent assessments of children's reading ability? In the six months of the study's duration, different types of data were collected. These consisted of assessments of children's taped readings of a story by two groups of teachers before (the pretest) and after (the posttest) their respective training programs; anecdotal records of the teachers' views of the programs and the assessment instruments they were using, and observations of the teachers' reading assessments of children selected by them for their practicum. Quantitative analyses of the pretest and posttest were made; these were based on criteria drawn from the Reading Miscue Inventory manual and the investigator's own miscue analysis of the children's taped readings. They showed that the teachers trained in miscue analysis, as reflected in the Reading Miscue Inventory, were able to make significantly better assessments of children's reading ability than the teachers trained in the Reading Appraisal Guide. In addition to the quantitative analysis, written and oral statements made by the teachers during the pretest, posttest and training programs were subjected to qualitative analysis and comparisons. These indicated that both groups' programs had strengthened the teachers' adherence to the Goodman model of reading, but those trained in the use of the Reading Miscue Inventory developed more effective assessment abilities and were more approving of the instruments they used, than were those trained in the use of the Reading Appraisal Guide. It was concluded that the Reading Miscue Inventory is an appropriate assessment instrument for use in college graduate reading programs. It proved complex and time-consuming to use, but at the same time it enabled teachers to make more accurate, in-depth assessments of children's reading than did the Reading Appraisal Guide. The latter was found to have some serious drawbacks, mostly arising from attempts to make it quicker and easier to use.

This study investigated the effects of teacher background variables on fourth grade reading achievement data collected from the 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) using a causal-comparative research design. Teacher quality variables related to teacher credentials, instructional methods, training, and support were selected from the NAEP background questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used to examine teacher background information and fourth grade reading NAEP scaled scores using measures of central tendency, independent t-tests, analysis of variance, and Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis. Findings suggest that certain teacher quality variables positively impact fourth grade reading achievement. Significant differences existed among fourth grade reading scaled scores for the following variables: teaching credentials [region (p < .05), traditional preparation route (p < .001), highest degree earned(p < .05), years of experience (p < .001)]; instructional methods [reading aloud by students (p < .01), questioning character motives (p < .01), student selection of reading materials (p < .001), explaining/supporting text (p < .05), identifying main theme (p < .001), time spent on reading (p < .001), primary language arts integration (p < .05)]; teacher support [instructional grade level support/technical assistance by reading specialist (p < .05) and mentoring (p < .05)]. This study expands the current literature on teacher quality by exploring the effects of teacher variables on reading achievement.