DENIAL AND DEFENSIVENESS IN THE PLACE OF FACT AND REASON - REJOINDER TO SMITH AND LOVAAS

The Smith and Lovaas (1997) rebuttal to our article (Gresham & MacMill an, 1997) is defensive, factually inaccurate, and often trivial in its attempts to distract readers from the more important issues of method ological rigor and experimental validity. Smith and Lovaas inaccuratel y claim that the EIP studies incorporated all six features outlined by the National Institutes of Health for scientifically sound outcome st udies and still do not admit to any methodological problems with the l ack of random assignment, instrumentation, statistical regression, and use of educational placement as an outcome measure. More important fo r schools and fair hearing officers, Smith and Lovaas do not adequatel y address the issues of external validity or generalizability of their findings across sites, subjects, parents, treatment implementers, and to settings in which physical punishment cannot be used. We indicate that the EIP results are indeed promising; however, the evidence prese nted to date is not as compelling as Smith and Lovaas suggest. Smith a nd Lovaas's inability to concede any methodological limitations of the EIP studies should give the parental, educational, and research commu nities reason for concern.