Learning Environments Research

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 443–460 | Cite as

Differentiation as measured by the Classroom Practices Survey: a validity study updating the original instrument

  • Nielsen PereiraEmail author
  • Juliana Tay
  • Yukiko Maeda
  • Marcia Gentry
Original Paper


The Classroom Practices Survey assesses educators’ use of differentiated instruction with students achieving at average and high levels. The purposes of this study were to investigate if the Classroom Practices Survey (1) yields reliable and valid data from the groups for which it was originally designed and (2) can be used to evaluate teachers’ differentiation practices for students who achieve at low levels. Participants included 648 elementary teachers who completed the Classroom Practices Survey for students achieving at high, average and low levels. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the original six-factor model was not supported by the current data. Model fit was improved with a four-factor model, but did not reach the recommended values for good model fit. Further research and possibly modifications are needed before this tool is used by researchers and schools. This study highlights the importance of periodically evaluating instruments and revising them if necessary.


Classroom Practices Survey (CPS) Differentiated instruction Validity 



This research was funded by the United States Department of Education, The Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program (Award #S206A140011).


  1. Al-Lawati, F. A. K., & Hunsaker, S. L. (2007). Differentiation for the gifted in American Islamic schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 500–518. Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.Google Scholar
  4. Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502–530. Scholar
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400–404. Scholar
  7. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, T. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guiford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21(2), 230–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). InTASC model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers. Retrieved from:
  12. Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards, C. J., Carr, S., & Siegel, W. (2006). Influences of experiences and training on effective teaching practices to meet the needs of diverse learners in schools. Education, 126, 580–592.Google Scholar
  14. Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19, 72–91. Scholar
  15. Gentry, M., & Gable, R. K. (2001). From the students’ perspective—My Class Activities: An instrument for use in research and evaluation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 322–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gentry, M., & Owen, S. V. (1999). An investigation of the effects of total school flexible cluster grouping on identification, achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(4), 224–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gentry, M., Paul, K. A., McIntosh, J., Fugate, C. M., & Jen, E. (2014). Total school cluster grouping and differentiation: A comprehensive research-based plan for raising student achievement and improving teacher practices. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted students and other students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 145–155. Scholar
  19. Gregory, G. H., & Kuzmich, L. (2014). Data driven differentiation in the standards based classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hertzog, N. (2005). Equity and access: Creating general education classrooms responsive to potential giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 213–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunsaker, S. L., & Shepherd, P. (2010). Policy perspectives on gifted education. In S. Hunsaker (Ed.), Identification: The theory and practice of identifying students for gifted and talented education services (pp. 121–141). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  24. Latz, A. O., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2015). An introduction to replication research in gifted education: Shiny and new is not the same as useful. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mammadov, S. (2014). A need to rethink about national consensus on preparing teachers of the gifted: A policy brief. The William and Mary Educational Review, 2(2), 15–18.Google Scholar
  28. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home, and school. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.Google Scholar
  30. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2014). Mplus, v.7.2. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  31. National Association for Gifted Children. (2008). The role of assessments in identifying gifted individuals. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  32. National Association for Gifted Children. (2010a). Pre-K to Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  33. National Association for Gifted Children. (2010b). Guiding questions to apply the Pre-K to Grade 12 Gifted Programming Standards. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  34. National Association for Gifted Children and Council for Exceptional Children, The Association for the Gifted. (2013). NAGCCEC Teacher preparation standards in gifted and talented education. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  35. National Association for Gifted Children and Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 20142015 state of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  36. Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st Century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. Scholar
  37. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2004). Curriculum compacting: A research-based differentiation strategy for culturally diverse talented students. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  38. Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2010). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  39. Stamps, L. S. (2004). The effectiveness of curriculum compacting in first grade classrooms. Roeper Review, 27(1), 31–41. Scholar
  40. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  41. Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Tomchin, E. M., Landrum, M., Imbeau, M., et al. (1995). Preservice teacher preparation in meeting the needs of gifted and other academically diverse students. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  42. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2007). Teacher education standards for the field of gifted education: A vision of coherence for personnel preparation in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 182–202. Scholar
  43. Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations