This study compared the robustness of two analysis strategies designed to detect Aptitude-Treatment Interactions to two of their similarly-held assumptions, normality and residual variance homogeneity. The analysis strategies were the test of slope differences in analysis of covariance and the test of the Block-by- Treatment interaction in randomized block analysis of variance. With equal sample sizes in the treatment groups the results showed that residual variance heterogeneity has little effect on either strategy but nonnormality makes the test of slope differences liberal and the test of the Block-by-Treatment interaction conservative. With unequal sample sizes in the treatment groups the often-reported sample size-variance heterogeneity pairing is problematic for both strategies. The findings suggest that the randomized block strategy can be characterized as an overly-conservative alternative to the test of slope differences with respect to robustness.