One final reading difficulty that presented was a tendency to substitute unusual or uncommon words for more common or easier ones: bistro for boisterous, deseed for deceased, bridge for brigade, Uranus for uranium, etc. 

While Manolo attempted to pronounce each word, he fidgeted profusely, rhythmically tapping his left hand and left foot in a synchronized manner that may have suggested impatience. He spoke very quickly, did not make eye contact with the examiner, and would look up at his classmates in between words and lists, again suggesting impatience. 

The next portion of the BRI was the Oral Reading Comprehension component. Manolo was asked to read a series of written entries aloud and then answer ten comprehension questions based on the readings. This portion revealed two different sets of data- word recognition and comprehension. The results of this portion of the BRI are as follows:

This portion of the BRI allowed the examiner to assess Manolo’s word recognition skills when he was reading words in context and his reading comprehension and retention skills. This section allows the student to see words in context and use context clues to identify words if necessary. This portion of the assessment records the number of significant miscues Manolo made while reading passages aloud. The examiner considered word substitutions, omissions, or mispronunciations that altered the meaning of the sentence or passage as significant. The examiner had Manolo read two eighth grade level passages, one expository (Form A) and one a longer narrative piece (Form LN). The examiner found the results somewhat peculiar: Manolo read the Form A passage with only 2 significant miscues (one a word substitution and one mispronunciation- dropped syllable) at independent/instructional level, but when it came time to answer the reading comprehension questions, he could only answer 50% of them, signifying frustration level. The other 50% of the time he stated he did not know the answer and would not even guess. Student stated that he had forgotten there would be questions and wanted to try another passage so he could answer more questions correctly. When given Form LN, Manolo was able to answer 15% more questions (for 65%, Instructional/Frustration) at the price of additional significant miscues.  Two passages at the ninth grade level were given, Form LN showing frustration in both word recognition and comprehension.  Form LE showed instructional/ frustration threshold in word recognition while showing solid frustration in oral comprehension. This peculiar data led to the administering of grade 7, Form A which showed an independent/instructional threshold in word recognition and instructional/frustration threshold in comprehension. Finally, two short passages from the sixth grade level, forms A and B, were used to attempt to find Manolo’s independent reading level. Again, when attempting to concentrate on pronouncing the words properly, he was not as well prepared to answer comprehension questions and vice versa; however, an independent threshold was reached in both sets of data. 