There was no difference in the proportion of poor and good readers who agreed with the expert readers (see Appendix B). Between 14% and 71% of poor readers agreed with the expert readers on the variable of interest, and between 14% and 71% of poor readers agreed with the expert readers on the variable of importance. Between 21% and 63% of good readers agreed with the expert readers on the variable of interest, and between 21% and 68% of good readers agreed with the expert readers on the variable of importance. For paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, none of the poor readers agreed with the expert raters on interest and importance combined, but for paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 7 a greater proportion of the poor readers agreed with the experts than the good readers on the same variable. Since no clear pattern emerged and because of the size of the sample, no statistical analysis was conducted.

Separate mean scores of ratings on each paragraph by poor and good readers for importance and for interest were calculated (see Appendix C). When the mean scores of ratings by poor and good readers were compared to mean scores of ratings by expert readers, no clear pattern emerged. Generally, there was disagreement with expert readers on most paragraphs. On paragraph 2, both poor and good readers agreed with the expert readers, and on paragraph 4, poor readers agreed with the expert readers, and the good readers did not. Because a clear pattern of responses failed to emerge, no statistical analysis was conducted.

When separate mean scores of ratings on each paragraph were calculated for all subjects (college readers) and compared to mean scores of ratings by expert readers, findings indicate that there was agreement for paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 (see Appendix D). Although there was no agreement with expert readers on paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, college readers consistently rated these paragraphs moderate in interest and moderate in importance.