AN INVESTIGATION OF TWO INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS FOR BEGINNING READERS WHICH OFFER PHONETIC REGULARITY WAS CONDUCTED AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EACH WAS THEN COMPARED TO A MORE TRADITIONAL READING APPROACH. THREE METHODS STUDIED AND COMPARED WERE (1) THE INITIAL TEACHING ALPHABET (ITA), (2) THE DIACRITICAL MARKING SYSTEM (DMS), AND (3) A BASAL APPROACH WITH TRADITIONAL ORTHOGRAPHY (T.O.) OVER 20 FIRST-GRADE CLASSROOMS FROM 3 MIDDLE-CLASS, SUBURBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS WERE SELECTED FOR STUDY. PARTICIPATING TEACHERS WERE VOLUNTEERS AND WERE ASSIGNED TO METHOD GROUPS BY LOT. CHILDREN RECEIVED CLASSROOM ASSIGNMENTS BY NORMAL PROCEDURES. PRE- AND POST-TESTS WERE SELECTED BY CONSULTANTS AND ADMINISTERED TO THE THREE METHOD GROUPS. PRETESTING OBTAINED MEASURES OF INTELLIGENCE AND READING READINESS. POST-TESTING WAS ACCOMPLISHED, PRIMARILY, THROUGH THE USE OF THE "STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST" AND THE "GILMORE ORAL READING TEST." INSTRUCTION WAS CONDUCTED FOR 140 DAYS, USING EACH OF THE THREE METHODS IN SELECTED CLASSES. THE ITA GROUP USED THE "EARLY TO READ SERIES," THE TRADITIONAL ORTHOGRAPHY GROUP USED "SHELDON BASAL READERS," AND THE DMS GROUP USED SHELDON READERS PREPARED WITH DIACRITICAL MARKS. THE MAJOR STATISTICAL PROCEDURE WAS ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN GROUP MEANS, USING CLASSROOMS AS UNITS. RESULTS INDICATED (1) THERE WERE NO DIFFERENCES IN READING ACHIEVEMENT AT THE END OF 1 YEAR OF INSTRUCTION FOR ANY OF THE THREE METHODS, (2) NO METHOD WAS BETTER FOR BOYS THAN GIRLS, (3) NO METHOD WAS BETTER FOR YOUNGER FIRST-GRADERS THAN OLDER FIRST-GRADERS, (4) MEAN VARIATIONS BETWEEN CLASSROOMS WERE GREATER THAN THOSE BETWEEN METHODS, (5) THERE WERE NO SPELLING ABILITY DIFFERENCES (ITA PUPILS WERE ALLOWED TO SPELL IN ITA), (6) THE BEST PREDICTOR FOR READING ACHIEVEMENT WAS RAW SCORE ON THE PINTNER-CUNNINGHAM PRIMARY TEST, AND (7) READING READINESS MATERIALS ARE NOT NECESSARY IN THE FIRST-GRADE INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING. (HB)