13.3 Error Analysis of Work Samples

ALTA Competency Exam for Multisensory Structured Language Education CALT

Track your progress as you read

Finished sections get a check mark.

1 Introduction & Exam Overview

1.1 Current Exam Facts 1.2 Eligibility and Therapy-Level Training 1.3 Registration, Prometric, and Study Plan

2 Language Development: Oral and Written Continuum

2.1 Oral-to-Written Language Continuum 2.2 Receptive and Expressive Oral Language 2.3 Receptive and Expressive Written Language

3 Language Development: Phonological Processing & Research

3.1 Atypical Literacy Development and Remediation 3.2 Phonological Processing Components 3.3 Research on Language Development

4 Structural Linguistics: Phonology

4.1 Continuum of Phonological Skills 4.2 Phonemes, Graphemes, and Morphemes 4.3 Articulatory Gestures

5 Structural Linguistics: Alphabetic Principle & Syllables

5.1 Alphabetic Principle and Sight-Word Recognition 5.2 Six Syllable Types 5.3 Syllable Division Patterns

6 Structural Linguistics: Accent, Morphology & Orthography

6.1 Accent Placement and Sound-Symbol Influences 6.2 Morphology: Roots and Affixes 6.3 Orthography, Affixing Rules, and Etymology

7 Structural Linguistics: Syntax, Semantics & Comprehension

7.1 Syntax, Sentence Structure, and Punctuation 7.2 Semantics and Pragmatics 7.3 Comprehension Strategies and Text Structures

8 Structural Linguistics: Written Language & Research

8.1 Handwriting and the Writing Process 8.2 Research on Structural Linguistics

9 Dyslexia: Definition, Brain & Neurology

9.1 Defining Dyslexia and Instructional Impact 9.2 Brain Anatomy and the Reading Network 9.3 Neurological Aspects of Learning Disabilities

10 Dyslexia: Related Issues, Comorbidity & History

10.1 Behavioral, Social, and Emotional Issues 10.2 Comorbid Disorders 10.3 Historical Pioneers in Dyslexia

11 Dyslexia: Research & Executive Function

11.1 Research on Dyslexia and Related Disorders 11.2 Executive Function and Dyslexia

12 Psychoeducational Assessment: Foundations

12.1 Assessment Terminology and Purposes 12.2 Essential Components of a Dyslexia Evaluation 12.3 Formal and Informal Assessment Instruments

13 Psychoeducational Assessment: Interpretation & Error Analysis

13.1 Interpreting Standard Scores, Percentiles, and Stanines 13.2 Using Results to Guide Services 13.3 Error Analysis of Work Samples 13.4 Psychoeducational Research

14 MSL Strategies: Multisensory, Systematic & Analytic

14.1 Simultaneous VAKT Multisensory Strategies 14.2 Systematic and Cumulative Instruction 14.3 Synthetic vs Analytic Instruction

15 MSL Strategies: Direct Instruction, Automaticity & Diagnosis

15.1 Direct vs Indirect Instruction 15.2 Automaticity in Literacy Development 15.3 Diagnostic Teaching

16 MSL Strategies: Program Principles & Theoretical Models

16.1 MSLE Program Content and Principles 16.2 Metacognition and Learning Environments 16.3 Simple View of Reading 16.4 Scarborough's Reading Rope

17 Federal Laws: IDEA, Section 504 & ADA

17.1 Federal Disability Law Landscape 17.2 Federal Eligibility Guidelines 17.3 Documentation Decisions and Accommodations 17.4 Historical Development of Disability Law

18 Professional Ethics: ALTA Code of Ethics

18.1 ALTA Code of Ethics Overview 18.2 Confidentiality, Competence, and Credentials 18.3 Ethical Standards with Parents and Colleagues

19 Professional Communication

19.1 Professional Student Reports 19.2 Strengths- and Needs-Based Language 19.3 Communicating with Parents, Students, and Colleagues

13.3 Error Analysis of Work Samples

Key Takeaways Explain This Topic AI

Error analysis looks for recurring linguistic patterns in reading and spelling—not isolated mistakes.

Classify miscues and misspellings by phonology, phonics/syllable type, orthography, morphology, or irregular-word memory.

Use instructional-level samples; frustrational text produces noise rather than a clear teaching target.

Let the earliest unmastered pattern in your cumulative MSLE sequence drive the next lesson.

Quantify dominant error types and state them in plain language for families and school teams.

Last updated: July 2026

13.3 Error Analysis of Work Samples

Quick Answer: Error analysis examines patterns in reading and spelling mistakes—not single typos—to diagnose which linguistic knowledge is missing (phonology, phonics, orthography, morphology, syllable patterns). Domain 4.G turns work samples into the next MSLE lesson.

Formal scores tell you how far a student is from peers. Error analysis tells you what to teach tomorrow . ALTA Domain 4.G expects CALTs to analyze oral reading and written spelling/composition samples for systematic patterns that map onto the structure of language.

Why Work-Sample Analysis Is Diagnostic Teaching Fuel

Multisensory Structured Language Education is diagnostic and prescriptive . Each lesson responds to what the student can and cannot yet do. A spelling inventory, dictated sentence, oral reading running record, or composition draft is a window into:

• Phoneme awareness and phoneme–grapheme mapping
• Knowledge of syllable types and division patterns
• Orthographic conventions and irregular “learned” words
• Morphological awareness (bases, prefixes, suffixes)
• Fluency and self-monitoring habits

A single odd misspelling is noise. A recurring pattern across items is signal.

• A Practical Framework for Reading Errors
• When listening to oral reading, classify miscues by linguistic type—not merely “wrong word.”

Error pattern (examples) Likely underlying issue Instructional implication

bend → bed ; slip → sip Phoneme omission / weak PA or blending Strengthen phoneme segmentation & blending; controlled CVC practice

bit → bite ; short/long vowel confusion Vowel phoneme–grapheme confusion; syllable-type insecurity Teach closed vs. VCe contrast explicitly

struck → stuck ; blend/cluster reduction Cluster sequencing difficulty Multisensory practice with initial/final blends

house → home (semantically related) Over-reliance on meaning/guessing Reduce picture/context crutches; demand decoding through the word

the → a ; function-word instability Attention, tracking, or automaticity of high-frequency forms Review learned words; tracking supports; reread for accuracy

Accurate but extremely slow Laborious decoding; limited orthographic mapping Build automaticity after accuracy; repeated reading of controlled text

Always interpret miscues in light of text difficulty . Errors on text far above the student’s decoding level are expected; analysis is most informative on instructional-level controlled or lightly decodable text.

Spelling Error Analysis: The Orthographic Microscope

Spelling is often more revealing than reading because it requires full phoneme–grapheme production.

• Step-by-step process
• Collect a dictation or inventory spanning known and nearly known patterns
• Transcribe exactly what the student wrote
• Compare to the target; mark substitutions, omissions, insertions, and sequence errors
• Group errors by linguistic category
• Choose the earliest unmastered concept in your cumulative sequence as the next target
• Common spelling pattern categories

• Student writing Target Pattern hypothesis
• bot for boat boat Vowel team / long-vowel spelling not secured
• jumpping for jumping jumping Doubling rule / syllable juncture insecure
• hopeing for hoping hoping Drop-e rule not applied

direckly for directly directly Speech-based /t/ deletion in the /kt/ cluster, plus ck overgeneralized ( ck is used only after a short vowel at the end of a base)

• sed for said said Irregular learned word not automated
• pasketti for spaghetti spaghetti Phonological representation / complex clusters

Ask: Is the error primarily phonological (sounds missing/wrong), orthographic (plausible phonemes, illegal or immature pattern), morphological (base/affix mismanaged), or memory for irregular forms ?

Morphology and Meaning Errors in Writing

Older students may decode single syllables yet collapse when writing morphologically complex academic words. Error analysis should inspect:

• Suffix additions that change spelling ( run → running )
• Schwa in unstressed syllables ( definAte vs. definite —morphology helps)
• Latin/Greek combining forms in content-area vocabulary

If a student writes happyness for happiness , the lesson may target the y-to-i rule and the noun-forming suffix—not another round of CVC short vowels the student already masters.

Quantifying Patterns Without Losing the Forest

Useful tallies for a work sample set:

• % of errors that are phonologically plausible
• Frequency of specific syllable-type failures (closed, VCe, open, r-controlled, vowel team, C-le)
• Rate of irregular high-frequency word errors
• Self-corrections (signs of monitoring) vs. unchecked guesses

Share summaries with families in plain language: “Seven of ten errors dropped or confused short vowels in closed syllables—so that is our primary therapy target this cycle.”

Linking Error Analysis to the Next MSLE Lesson

Error analysis closes the loop with Domain 5 diagnostic teaching:

• Identify the dominant unmet concept
• Review prerequisites briefly (VAKT if needed)
• Teach the concept explicitly with multisensory practice
• Apply in reading and spelling of controlled words/sentences
• Probe retention in later warm-ups

If analysis shows random, inconsistent errors with strong day-to-day fluctuation, consider attention, fatigue, vision/hearing concerns, or emotional factors—and collaborate rather than endlessly reteaching the same phonogram.

• Pitfalls the Exam Likely Tests
• Treating every miscue as a “guessing” problem when the student lacks the phonics concept
• Ignoring morphology in intermediate/secondary samples
• Analyzing frustrational text and concluding the student “can’t learn phonics”
• Correcting surface punctuation while missing a systemic syllable-type gap
• Designing the next lesson around a rare one-off error instead of the dominant pattern
• CALT Communication of Error Findings

In student reports (Domain 8 connection), describe patterns and instructional responses: “Spelling samples show consistent failure to apply the doubling rule when adding -ing to CVC bases. Therapy will include explicit instruction, guided discovery with letter tiles, and cumulative review dictation.” That sentence demonstrates Domain 4.G competence: linguistic diagnosis from work products.