ArterJ. A., & JenkinsJ. R. (1977). Examining the benefits and prevalence of modality considerations in special education.Journal of Special Education, 11, 281–298.
2.
ArterJ. A., & JenkinsJ. R. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal.Review of Educational Research, 49, 517–555.
3.
CampbellD. T., & StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.Chicago: Rand McNally.
4.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
5.
CooperH. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews.Review of Educational Research, 52, 291–302.
6.
CooperH., & RosenthalR. (1980). Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings.Psychological Bulletin, 87, 442–449.
7.
CronbachL. J., & SnowR. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interaction.New York: Irvington.
8.
DelacatoC. H. (1966). Neurological organization and reading.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
9.
DerevenskyJ. L. (1978). Modal preferences and strengths: Implications for reading research.Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 7–23.
JacksonG. B. (1980). Methods for integrative reviews.Review of Educational Research, 50, 438–460.
17.
KampwirthT. J., & BatesM. (1980). Modality preference and teaching method: A review of research.Academic Therapy, 15, 597–605.
18.
KavaleK. A., & MattsonP. D. (1983). “One jumped off the balance beam”: Meta-analysis of perceptual-motor training.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 165–173.
19.
LloydJ. W. (1984). How shall we individualize instruction—Or should we?Remedial and Special Education,5, 7–15.
20.
MastropieriM. A., & ScruggsT. E. (1989). Constructing more meaningful relationships: Mnemonic instruction for special populations.Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111.
21.
MorrisonD. E., & HenkelR. E. (Ed.). (1970). The significance test controversy: A reader.Chicago: Aldine.
22.
RosenthalR. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results.Psychological Bulletin, 85, 638–641.
23.
RossiP., & WrightS. (1977). Evaluation research: An assessment of theory, practice, and politics.Evaluation Quarterly, 1, 5–52.
24.
SalomonG. (1972). Heuristic models for the generation of aptitude-treatment interaction hypotheses.Review of Educational Research, 42, 327–343.
25.
TallmadgeG. K. (1977). The joint dissemination review panel idea book.Washington, DC: National Institute of Education and U.S. Office of Education.
26.
TarverS. G., & DawsonM. M. (1978). Modality preference and the teaching of reading: A review.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 5–17.
27.
WhiteW. A. T. (1988). A meta-analysis of effects of direct instruction in special education.Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 364–374.
28.
YsseldykeJ. E. (1973). Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: The search for aptitude-treatment interactions. In MannL., & SabatinoD. (Eds.), The first review of special education (pp. 5–32). Philadelphia: JSE Press.