A study was conducted to determine whether reading specialists' diagnoses lead directly to remedial recommendations. Eight experienced reading specialists were observed during 24 sessions as they performed a series of tasks using three simulated cases of reading difficulty, two of which were thinly disguised versions of the same reading problem. The study demonstrated that (1) the bulk of the diagnostic and remedial statements for a given case were made only once; (2) across all cases a relatively small number of categories of diagnostic and remedial statements accounted for all statements made more than once; (3) examination of common case information led to neither common diagnoses, common remediations, nor common associations between remediation and diagnosis; (4) only by aggregating diagnostic and remedial statements across clinicians could the outlines of meager consensus on each case be demonstrated; (5) at the individual clinician level, there was essentially no correlation between diagnosis and remediation; (6) at the group level, diagnosis and remediation showed a modest level of association; and (7) clinicians did not follow their stated plans regarding information collection procedures and the writing of the diagnosis and remediation. (Author/AEA)