Comprehensive QRI-5 Assessment Report: Reading Comprehension Analysis

This report details a QRI-5 assessment conducted on a preprimary student, Izabella, to evaluate her reading comprehension skills. The assessment included narrative and expository passages, assessing vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension through retelling and question-answering. The student's performance was analyzed, revealing areas of strength and weakness, such as challenges in retelling chronologically and limited vocabulary knowledge. The report also included comparisons of the student's performance with established percentiles for fluency and accuracy. The assessment involved the use of concept questions, prediction, and comprehension questions. The report also presents the assessment process, observations, and results of the student's performance, including miscues made during reading and accuracy rates. The findings highlight the student's performance and the need for interventions to improve reading comprehension and fluency, and provide a comprehensive overview of the assessment process, results, and implications for instruction.

Running head:QRI-5 1
QRI-5
Student name
Affiliated institution
Date

QRI-5
2
QRI-5
By using the QRI passages, I also tested for word-meaning vocabulary. I picked a
passage within Izabella’s reading and comprehension level making the vocabulary words in her
level. By having Izabella read and comprehend the passage, her word-meaning vocabulary was
assessed. If there were tier II and tier III vocabulary words that she did not know the meaning of
it would make it harder for her to comprehend and retell the story. The word-meaning factor is
one of the most important aspects of a student's ability to understand. Izabella, a preprimary, had
comprehension issues and using the QRI-5 model, I sought to help improve his predictability and
fluency while reading.
To assess my student’s reading comprehension, I also used the QRI passages. I evaluated
the reading comprehension in two different ways. The first was asking her to retell me the story
once she was done reading it. Asking Izabella to retell the story gets her thinking about what she
just read while comprehending it well enough to tell the story back to me. I checked off
everything she said that matched the QRI retelling scoring sheet. Once she was finished, I added
up her score and divided by the total number of possibilities. This gave me a percentage of the
information she was able to retell.The next way I assessed reading comprehension was by asking
Izabella the comprehension questions after she read the text. There were about six questions after
the passage that measured how well Izabella comprehended the passage. Then, I presented some
questions after which I marked as either right or wrong and noted the amount of question the
student answered correctly. By seeing how many Izabella answered correctly, this allowed me to
see what level she comprehended at independent, instructional, or frustration.
The first assessment I did to access Izabella’s comprehension skills was a complete QRI
narrative. I chose to start at the primer level based on the previous evaluations I conducted. The

QRI-5
3
passage had a large font with pictures on each page. There were three concept questions, a
prediction question, 36 recall ideas, and six comprehension questions.I started the assessment by
reading Izabella the instructions located on page 56 in the “Qualitative Reading Inventory” text
(Stange, 2013). The instructions were important since they informed the teacher how well, the
learner could read independently, assess his memory and answer the questions to the passsges. I
then proceeded to ask Izabella the concept questions and prediction while recording what she
stated. I also took note of the time the student took reading the passage.As Izabella read, I
recorded any miscues that she made. After she finished, I then took the story away from her and
asked her to retell the passage to me as if I have never heard it before. Izabella scored an
average in retell but did not perform satisfactorily as the assessment required. She could not alos
retell the passage chronologically or in comprehension manner.
Consequently, I asses the student on QRI narrative, and the result were as I expected. The
student scored a 78% on familiarity with the concept questions, and she knew a good amount of
background knowledge relating to the passage. She talked about what it means to be a good
reader and what it takes to become a good reader; she just was not detailed enough. It took
Izabella 5 minutes and 40 seconds to read the complete passage of 176 words. This means that
she learned about 31 words per minute. Because she had six total miscues, she read about 30
correct words per minute. I observed that the student had six total miscues, yet, on three had an
effect of changing the meaning of the text. Therefore, this meant that Izabella’s complete
accuracy was total acceptability.This is an excellent performance since it means only three erros
altered the meaning of the text and her ability to understand it. Following the passage, I saked the
student to retell the passage to me as if I had never listened to it. I observed that Izabella
struggled recalling only recalling some few facts concerning the story.

QRI-5
4
While she was retelling the story to me, she also did not tell it in order, making it hard
for me to understand. She was stating facts about the story when retelling it. I used the table on
page 152 of the McKenna and Stahl book to see what percentile Izabella was in for fluency. I
found that she was in-between the 50th and 75th percentile for her grade. This was surprising
since I thought she was unable to learn fluently. I felt that she would be on the lower end of the
scale.The other assessment I engaged Izabella with was to complete the complete QRI expository
at the primer level. The assessment is located on page 157 of the Qualitative Reading Inventory
text and is titled “Who Lives Near Lakes” (Stange, 2013). The text constituted a large font and
only a single with a visual on the half page. The expository passage had three concept questions,
a prediction question, 18 recall ideas, and six comprehension questions. I issued the QRI
assessmentmeasure, in the same manner, I had done earlier which involved reading instructions,
asking the questions and predicting her accuracy, timing the student, asking her to recall and
lastly requested her to answer comprehension questions. By the time I was assessing the student,
she was aware of what was expected of her but she was unmotivated. She was hesitant and not
in the mood, which could have skewed the data and made the QRI less reliable. There were also
some distractions during this assessment because her grandma was over, which also could have
made the expository QRI not reliable.
The other student, Preston, as his class teacher, informed me had challenges decoding
strategies and his capabilities could not match those of a kindergarten student.Shepreferred
activities to the reading. She took excessive time to read and write down his assignment whereas
the task was considered being simple. Generally, Preston seemed unmotivated and uninspired.
Using the QRI-5 intervention, the student becomes more inspired and now she could read, retell
and made connections after once week of the instructions (Stange, 2013).

QRI-5
5
Within three weeks,Preston’slistening and speaking skills had greatly improved. The
instructions involved intense practice and focusing on decoding skills such as CVC and CVC
final –e patterns, the student started showing progress, I observed that the student could process
the visual traits associated with letters d and b. intrigued by the timer, Preston became inspired to
focus on fluency and was able to read a string of words. Still, there was notable use of both long
and short vowels in her writing. For the words that he could not understand, he used illustrations.
All these exhibited she had developed metacognitive thinking about her reading skills. Within a
mother f QRI-5 intervention, even his mother observed that her son was inspired and could take
the book and read something, which he was not doing earlier.His teacher also noted that the
student had become more engaged and progressive (2013).

QRI-5
6
Reference
Kamil, M. L., Afflerbach, P. P., Pearson, P. D., &Moje, E. B. (2011).Preface: Reading the
research in a changing era. Handbook of reading research, 4, 13-27
Stange, T. V. (2013). Exploring text level difficulty and matching texts for reading
achievement. EducationMatters: The Journal of Teaching and Learning, 1(2).