Despite almost a century of research, there is little consensus among researchers and educators about the role of oral reading accuracy in beginning reading progress of struggling readers. Should, for example, students be given easy books to read with high levels of accuracy to promote early reading development or does reading hard texts with lower levels of accuracy better propel reading progress? The purpose of this study was to examine, within the context of first grade students (N = 140) receiving one-to-one reading tutoring, the role of oral reading accuracy in reading progress of young struggling readers, ranges of accuracy associated with higher reading progress, and the additive contribution, if any, of self-correction. I used descriptive statistics, multiple regression analysis, and HLM to examine the relationship between oral reading accuracy and early reading progress of first graders having difficulty learning to read. Results indicated that percentage of oral reading accuracy positively and moderately predicted struggling readers' adjusted OSELA and SORT-R3 Exit scores. Oral reading accuracy also was positively associated with book level growth; students who read with an average of 95% oral reading accuracy made about twice the growth in book level over a 20-week period than students with an average of 85% oral reading accuracy. A more detailed analysis of ORA ranges revealed that students who read consistently with above 90% ORA made higher gains adjusted OSELA and SORT-R3 Exit scores and made higher growth in book level than students who read with below 90% ORA. Specifically, an average of 95% oral reading accuracy predicted the highest outcomes for young struggling readers and an average of 83% oral reading accuracy or below strongly and negatively predicted outcomes. In terms of self-correction, only the number of self-corrections predicted reading progress above oral reading accuracy on adjusted OSELA Exit scores; however, the contribution was refuted by post hoc analyses. No other self-correction variable significantly predicted adjusted OSELA Exit scores. Additionally, no self-correction variable predicted growth above oral reading accuracy on adjusted SORT-R3 Exit scores, and no self-correction variable accounted for growth in book level. One implication of this study highlights the need to revisit current theories of beginning reading, particularly those involving self-correction behavior. Additional implications include consideration for the oral reading accuracy criteria used in the instruction and assessment of young struggling readers, and the press for more sound methodological tools for researching oral reading accuracy and self-correction. This study is limited by the generalizability of the findings to other student populations, the methodological confounds of oral reading accuracy and self-correction, and alternative interpretations of students' reading growth. Suggestions for future research include an experimental study of oral reading accuracy, replication of findings with various student populations and contexts, and consistency in variables and text selection. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]