Metatheoretical Differences between Running Records and Miscue Analysis: Implications for Analysis of Oral Reading Behaviors

The purpose of this article is to examine the metatheoretical differences that impact how running records and miscue analysis differ in (a) the quantification of readers' produced responses to text and (b) the analysis of oral reading behaviors. After providing historical and metatheoretical overviews of both procedures, we present the data source, which included 74 records of oral readings from an extant data set collected from an informal reading inventory. Each record was coded using running record and miscue analysis procedures. We used inferential statistics to examine relationships across conceptually similar items of analysis (for example, the number of errors or miscues). Findings from the inferential statistics show that there were significant, positive correlations between three of the five conceptually similar items, and a lack of statistically significant correlations between the use of meaning and grammar between running records and miscue analysis. Based on the findings, we argue that both procedures, which are often confused and conflated, possess metatheoretical differences that influence how oral reading behaviors are interpreted. These differences, in turn, impact how reading ability is framed and socially constructed. We conclude with the significance of this research for education professionals.