Gh. Noell et al., FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES IN DIFFERENTIATING WHAT WAS SAID FROM WHAT WAS DONE IN BEHAVIORAL CONSULTATION, School psychology quarterly, 13(1), 1998, pp. 81-88
Kratochwill, Bergan, Sheridan, and Elliott (this issue) raise a number
of points of disagreement with two previous critiques of the behavior
al consultation literature (Noell & Witt, 1996; Witt, Gresham, & Noell
, 1996b). The purpose of this article is to clarify the role of differ
ing epistemologies in creating the current controversy and to reiterat
e the substantial areas of agreement expressed across the several pape
rs contributing to this discussion. The current controversy derives in
part from differing epistemological standards applied to verbal repor
ts about behavior by consultees. The use of differing definitions of b
ehavioral consultation, broad theoretical versus specific operational,
has also contributed to the current controversy. The numerous areas o
f agreement include the need for effective procedures to deliver consu
ltation services in schools, the emphasis on implementing empirically
derived interventions, and the need for additional data regarding proc
edures to obtain treatment implementation.