Authoritative opinion of long standing has recommended that purposes for reading be established prior to reading. In spite of such recommendations, testing procedures for oral reading typically have not involved reading for purposes. Furthermore, research designed to examine the effectiveness of reading for purposes has generally produced divergent findings. Superior reading performance has been observed when purposes for reading were established prior to reading as well as when they were not established prior to reading. Moreover, research designed to examine the effectiveness of purposeful reading has been confined almost exclusively to the area of silent reading. To date not a single investigation has been found which clearly illustrated the effects of purposes for reading on oral reading performance. The present study was designed to investigate the relationships between three testing techniques and performance on four dimensions of oral reading performance. The three testing techniques employed in this study were identified as (1) careful reading, (2) reading for specific purposes, and (3) reading for general purposes. The four dimensions of oral reading performance on which comparisons were made involved oral reading word accuracy, comprehension, rate, and the percentages of semantic substitutions. The four research hypotheses examined in the investigation are stated as follows: 1. There is a difference in oral reading word accuracy under the treatments careful reading, reading for specific purposes, and reading for general purposes for third and sixth graders. 2. There is a difference in oral reading comprehension under the treatments careful reading, reading for specific purposes, and reading for general purposes for third and sixth graders. 3. There is a difference in oral reading rate under the treatments careful reading, reading for specific purposes, and reading for general purposes for third and sixth graders. 4. There is a difference in the percentages of semantic substitutions made under the treatments careful reading, reading for specific purposes and reading for general purposes for third and sixth graders. To obtain data for this study, forty-five third grade and forty-five sixth grade subjects were randomly selected from two elementary schools. The ninety subjects chosen for the study were then randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups. Each subject was requested to read orally in the manner dictated by the treatment group to which he had been assigned. The materials from which subjects read were the appropriate passages from Form A of the Gilmore Oral Reading Test (1852). Measurements for oral reading word accuracy, comprehension, rate, and percentages of semantic substitutions were computed for each subject. A 2x3 analysis of variance design was used to test for differential treatment effects. An analysis of the data from the study indicted that none of the research hypotheses was supported at the .05 level of significance. The present study led to recommendations in the areas of theory, diagnosis, teaching, and research. Authoritative opinion has suggested that many of the classification schemes used for analyzing oral reading errors are a theoretical. It is possible that performance differences not evidenced through the classification scheme employed in this study could be found using a classification scheme having a sounder theoretical basis. It was therefore recommended that the effects of the three treatments employed in this study be reexamined using a classification scheme built around a theory of reading. In contrast to investigation in the area of silent reading, the present study did not evidence differences in reading performance under the treatments employed. The failure of oral reading performance to vary in the manner observed for silent reading suggested that the two forms of reading are in some respects dissimilar. It was therefore recommended that that diagnostic procedures include measures of both oral and silent reading . Recent investigation has suggested that children often need greater skill in reading for different purposes. One possible explanation for why differential treatment effects were not obtained in the present study was that subjects did not have skill in reading for different purposes. The recommendation was made, therefore, that classroom teachers place greater. emphasis on teaching children to read for different purposes. The following recommendations were made for the area of research. (1) It was recommended that research be undertaken to develop measures of oral reading comprehension, rate, and percentages of semantic substitutions which have greater test-retest reliability. (2) The sample chosen for this study was restricted to third and sixth graders whose performance on a standardized silent reading test placed them in the second or third quartile of the normative population. A replication of this study using subjects from other grade and performance levels was recommended. (3) It was recommended that investigation be undertaken to further examine the relationships between oral and silent reading. Special consideration should be given to identifying those factors in which a satisfactory generalization from oral reading to silent reading can be made. (4) This study did not evidence differential treatment effects using reading materials and purposes for reading supplied by an examiner. It was recommended that investigation be undertaken to examine the effectiveness of using pupil-selected materials and pupil purposes for reading.