FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES IN DIFFERENTIATING WHAT WAS SAID FROM WHAT WAS DONE IN BEHAVIORAL CONSULTATION

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.