ABSTRACT
Consultation in schools can serve a diverse array of functions, including providing organizational development, sta# development, professional support, and intervention development for students (Erchul & Martens, 2002; Kratochwill, Bergan, Sheridan, & Elliott, 1998; Zins, Kratochwill, & Elliott, 1993). However, even modest scrutiny of either practice or the empirical literature suggests that the predominant function of consultation in schools is to address the concerns of parents and educators regarding individual or small groups of children who are not functioning well (e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, 1989; Sheridan, Eagle, Cowan, & Mickelson, 2001). In short, we consult primarily to intervene on behalf of students. In these cases, consultation is a vehicle for the treatment of students’ academic, behavioral, and emotional concerns. A tremendous number of variables are known or hypothesized to in!uence the e%cacy of treatments provided in educational, psychological, and social service settings. Although many variables are thought to in!uence treatment e%cacy, one variable appears to be most de$nitive in its impact on treatment e%cacy: treatment integrity. Treatment integrity is the degree to which an independent variable or treatment is implemented as planned (Gresham, 1989; Moncher & Prinz, 1991; Yeaton & Sechrest, 1981). To state the obvious, treatment plans that are not implemented have little chance of bene$ting anyone.
