Abstract
This is a response to the document by Hughes et al. in this issue that offers a critique of the status of differential response (DR). We find the document to be helpful in intent, but do not find that it reflects scientifically sound methods, and contains many mischaracterizations of the status, impetus, research, and evaluation of DR to date. We attempt to define DR, provide a national overview, and in doing so clarify some inaccuracies portrayed by the authors on the implementation of DR. Second, we provide some observations about the critique of the research, our sense of what is coming, and what is needed in the way of research and evaluation going forward.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
