The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Individual Differences and Individual Difference: The Essential Difference of Special Education
Abstract
The current aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) approach to accommodating individual differences has not proved instructionally useful. In this paper, reasons for this failure are identified and considered, and the desirable characteristics of an alternative model are identified. Formative evaluation is offered as a promising alternative that addresses individual uniqueness rather than dimensionalized individual differences. The notion that the failure of ATI research to be practically useful in designing instruction justifies ignoring individual difference is rejected.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a study, a specific mathematics program (Accelerated Math) was implemented with CBM, and results for both the NALT and STAR Math exams indicated that students who participated in AM demonstrated more growth than students who did not participate.
“In this study, a specific mathematics program (Accelerated Math) was implemented with CBM.The results of the analyses for both the NALT and STAR Math exams indicated that students who participated in AM demonstrated more growth than students who did not participate (p.532).”
From Curriculum-Based Measurement: A Brief History of Nearly Everything from the 1970s to the Present (2013) · cites this paper as [219]
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 9 · Cited by 61
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Ackerman, P.L., 1989, Learning and individual differences
- 10.1037/h0043943 · DOI
- Gagne, R.M., 1967, Learning and individual differences
- Glaser, R., 1967, Learning and individual differences, 1
- 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.491 · DOI
- Nagel, E., 1953, Readings in the philosophy of science, 688
- Patterson, G.R., 1985, Handbook of family psychology and therapy, 1344
- Snow, R.E., 1989, Learning and individual differences, 13
- 10.1177/001440297404100305 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Deno, S. L.
- Affiliations
- Stanley L. Deno, 178 Pillsbury Dr. S.E., 229 Burton Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
- Corresponding author
- Deno, Stanley L.
- Venue
- The Journal of Special Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1990-07
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 160-173
- ISSN
- 0022-4669 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4764
- OpenAlex
- W2159663888
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Special Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational and Psychological Assessments
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- individual differences, aptitude-treatment interaction, formative assessment, instructional design, individual uniqueness, special education instruction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
