Study of the language and literacy skills of individuals with Down syndrome (DS) has evolved over the past thirty years. Despite these advances, little research has explored the process of reading by incorporating an authentic text (i.e. storybook). This information is pertinent to assist in the understanding of language and literacy and the impact on intervention to ensure that individuals with DS receive appropriate access to knowledge and skills through reading. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to determine if there were differences between two groups, individuals with DS and typically developing (TD) children with reading difficulties, while reading an authentic text and incorporating the reading tool, miscue analysis.
Ten individuals with DS and nine TD children with reading difficulties participated in this study. Subjects qualified for this study based on raw scores from the Fluency subtests of the Gray Oral Reading Test—Fourth Edition (GORT-4), and TD children demonstrated reading abilities on the Fluency subtests that were at least one standard deviation below the average range for their age. Quantitative data from miscue analysis were analyzed using a logistic regression, and the data from miscue analysis as well as the oral retellings were analyzed qualitatively to further explore and describe these measures.
Results from the statistical analysis revealed that unlike their reading-matched peers, participants with DS produced more overall miscues as well as those that did not maintain the author’s meaning, were not syntactically acceptable, and were less graphophonemically similar. The participants with DS self-corrected miscues less frequently than the TD group. Qualitative analysis revealed that participants in the DS group utilized reading strategies and cueing systems while reading; however, they were less sophisticated than the TD children with reading difficulties. Holistic analysis of the oral story retellings showed that the participants with DS produced primarily fragments, used fewer details, and had retellings that were judged to be more confusing than the TD participants. Clinical implications are discussed.