behavioral versus process consultation interventions in school settings

American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 6, 1978

Behavioral Versus Process Consultation Interventions in School Settings x

Leonard A. Jason z and Louise Ferone De Paul University

Teachers experiencing difficulties in managing disruptive, acting-out children in two parochial first-grade classes were provided either behavioral or process consultation. The behavioral intervention included discussions of behavior modification principles, feedback concerning contingent praise, and individualized behavioral interventions. In contrast, the process consultant used clarifying, supportive, and reflective responses to help the teacher better understand classroom difficulties and enhance her ability to work with problem children. Results of the interventions indicated that during consultation sessions and follow-up, problem behaviors were significantly reduced and attention to desirable behaviors significantly increased. The results were observed in three problem children in the classroom provided with behavioral consultation, and there only. Both teachers rated problem children as being less disruptive following program involvement. Significant positive relations were found between directly observed and teacher ratings o f problem behaviors.

Strengthening the abilities of natural caregivers via consultat ion represents a part icularly attractive communi ty intervention, especially since most individuals in distress take their problems to natural caregivers instead of mental health professionals (Gurin, Veroff, & Feld, 1960). There have been five types of consultation described, including client or consultee-centered (Caplan, 1964), group process (Lippit t , 1959), social action (Alinsky, 1972), ecological (Kelly,

We are particularly appreciative of the help extended the program by the principals and teachers at Saint Teresa and Saint Alphonse Elementary Schools. Robert Davenport and Frank Dinello, from De Paul Community Mental Health Center, were instrumental in supporting the initial ideas for launching the project. Our thanks also to Terry Nelson, Dawna Mitchell, and Jerald Soucy fox their help in data collection.

2All correspondence should be sent to Leonard A. Jason, Psychology Department, 2219 North Kenmore Avenue, De Paul University, Chicago, IUinois 60614.

531

0091-0562/78/1200-0531 $05.00/0 © 1978 P~enurn Publishing Corporation

532 Jason and Ferone

1970), and behavioral consultation (Randolph, 1972). The most widely used of these diverse theoretical approaches have been Caplan's (hereafter referred to as the process model) and the behavioral model.

Behavioral consultations usually have been directed towards helping teachers better manage children with problem behaviors. A wide variety of behavioral approaches have been used, including providing teachers: general instructions in behavior modification principles (McKeown, Henry, & Forehand, 1975), feedback and praise (Cossairt, Hall, & Hopkins, 1973), positive practice technique s (Azrin & Powers, 1975); still other behavioral consultants have helped teachers set up token economies (Ayllon, Layman, & Kandel, 1975), and one intervention provided teachers a comprehensive package of feedback, social praise, modeling and role playing (Jones & Eimers, 1975). Several methodological flaws have plagued most behavioral studies, including failures to incorporate adequate follow-up periods, to follow developments in control children and classes, and to assess change on more comprehensive criterion measures (e.g., teacher perceptions of changes, socioemotional and cognitive measurements).

In regard to process consultation, there have been more theoretical, descriptive, and speculative articles than rigorously evaluated studies. A recent review article (Mannino & Shore, 1975) reported client change was achieved in several studies, however, such findings have been exclusively based on ratings of improvement (i.e., via teacher questionnaires). A recent article by Meyers (1975) did find decreases in disruptive behaviors following a process consultation program, however, there were behavioral elements in the intervention.

Behavioral consultants have almost exclusively studied change using observable behaviors, whereas process consultants have solely assessed change as perceived by the consultee. Since both types of data are of prospective im- portance, it is unfortunate that no studies have compared the differential ef- ficacy of behavioral versus process consultation, using observational data and teacher perceptions of change. Only a study by Linoff (1972) compared process with behavioral consultation, and found no differences; however, changes were assessed solely through questionnaires. There is a patent need for comparative studies of the relative effectiveness of conceptually different interventions using diverse sets of criterion measures (Jason, Gesten, & Yock, 1976; Stolz, 1973).

The present study evaluated the differential effectiveness of process and behavioral consultation programs. Differences between the interventions were evaluated on three sets of criterion measures, including observed behavioral changes in children and teachers, teacher ratings of children's functioning, and teacher ratings of the classroom environment. Unique methodological features of the present study included: (a) comprehensively evaluating the impact of two diverse interventions on identified problem children, (b) following a group of nonproblem control children, and (c) assessing maintenance of gains at follow-up points.

Consultation in School Settings 533

METHOD

Site and SubJect Selection

The consultation programs were located in two parochial elementary schools in Chicago. Neither school had access to a guidance counselor or school psychologist. Nine parochial schools, each having one first-grade classroom, initially expressed interest in the consultation programs. Two were selected on the basis of being situated in the same geographic area, having similar racial distributions (about 40% Spanish, 30% White, and 30% Black students), and having first-grade teachers interested in the program. A White, experienced elementary school teacher, from each school, was randomly assigned to either the process or behavioral consultation interventions.

The Classroom Information Sheet (Gesten, Cowen, & DeStefano, 1979, described below) provided information pertaining to the teaching style in the classrooms. The teacher assigned the i~ehavioral consultation spent 20% of the time with individual students, 30% with small groups, and 50% with the entire class. The teacher assigned process consultation spent 25% with individual students, 50% with small groups, and 25% with the entire class. In regard to teacher location, the behavioral teacher spent 10% at her desk, 20% sitting somewhere else, and 70% moving around the class; the process teacher spent 50% sitting somewhere in the class, and 50% of the time moving around the class. In both classes, teachers went over workbooks regularly, emphasized basic skills, gave few tests or evaluations, and provided physical contact (hugging, hand-holding) to children.

Each teacher was asked to identify those four children having the most serious acting-out problems. In the classroom provided process consultation, three of these target children were male, one was female; all were White. Their average age was 7 years (ranging from 6 years 8 months to 7 years 9 months). Target children in the behavioral classroom consisted of three boys, one girl; two were Black and two were Spanish. Their average age wds 6 years 7 months (ranging from 6 years 1 month to 7 years 6 months). Standardized achievement tests were not administered, however an estimate of ability levels was provided by teachers who rated 3 of the 4 process children and all 4 of the behavioral children as having problems in reading, math, and writing (using the Classroom Adjustment Rating Scale; Lorion, Cowen, & Caldwell, 1975, described below). In both classes, among the identified problem children, one child's father was not living with the family. Two nonproblem children were also selected by each teacher. Both problem and nonproblem children were initially observed in the classroom for a 4-week base line, then for 7 weeks of consultation, and finally for a 4-week follow-up.


Program

The first author served as the consultant during the two phases of the behavioral intervention. During the first two sessions (first phase), the consultant and teacher discussed children's problem behaviors and behavior modification principles. The teacher was told that child problem behaviors often elicit teacher attention and thereby inadvertently strengthen undesirable behaviors. Alternative behavioral tactics were discussed, including ignoring disruptive behaviors and actively attending to appropriate ones. During these sessions, the consultant and teacher set a goal of attempting to provide teacher attention to 20% of the desirable behaviors of the three problem children. One problem child moved during the first week of consultation. During the second phase of the intervention, weeks 7-11, the teacher was given immediate feedback (after each problem child was observed, a sign was held up by the observer to inform the teacher about percent of attention to desirable behaviors and percent of problem behaviors) and was praised by the consultant for increases in attention to desirable behaviors and decreases in problem behaviors of the selected children. Besides these general procedures, the teacher requested specific, tailor-made interventions for the three problem children. The consultant and teacher devised individualized programs for the children (daily positive or negative teacher reports were sent home to one child's parents contingent upon percent of problem behaviors in the class, two of the problem children were required to stay in for recess and practice following teacher rules if daily problem behaviors were greater than 40%).

The second author served as the process consultant and assumed a non- directive position in helping the consultee better understand difficulties and enhance extant skills in working with problem children. Initially the process consultant established a warm, supportive relationship with the teacher. The consultant empathically listened to descriptions of four problem children, their problems, and the difficulties the teacher had in working with the young- sters. Throughout, the process consultant actively sought out opportunities to support the teacher's constructive ways of handling classroom difficulties. When the teacher encountered intractable classroom problems (e.g., fighting among peers), the teacher and consultant explored alternative strategies to ameliorate the difficulties. For example, decisions were made to seat some of the four problem children who habitually quarreled in opposite sides of the classroom. Most of the consultant's efforts were directed towards providing clarifying, supportive, and reflective responses to help the teacher understand and resolve classroom problems.

All consultation sessions were taped, and the middle 2 minutes for each tape were transcribed. These tapes were coded using a scale developed by Reisman and Yamokoski (1974). The reports of these analyses are reported elsewhere (Jason, Sibley, & Ferone, Note 1). The behavioral consultant used significantly


more suggestions (advice, recommendations, and instructions), whereas the process consultant's communications were significantly more responsive (acknowledging that previous messages were received). Communications of the behavioral consultant were also significantly longer than the process consultant's.

Measures

Changes in children's status were evaluated by three sets of criterion measures, including continuous direct classroom observations of children's problem behaviors and teacher attending behaviors, pre-post teacher ratings of children's functioning, and pre-post assessments of classroom social climate.

Observational Indices

The behavioral observational system was a modified version of the format described in Solomon and Wahler (1973). Desirable and problem behaviors for the three categories of child behavior as well as teachers' social attention are defined below:

Talking (T) desirable (d): child speaks when recognized by teacher problem (p): child emits a nonpermitted sound, in violation of the teacher's rules

Task (TK) desirable (d): child focusing on task (e.g., manipulating objects at his own desk in accordance with teacher's rules) problem (p): child focusing off task (e.g., using his hands to play with his own property, community property, another child's property, or another child, thereby violating teacher's rules)

Out of Seat (O) desirable (d): child leaves seat following teacher's permission problem (p): child leaves seat without permission

Teacher Approval (A) verbal praise, positive physical contact, or giving the child a material object

All children were observed during reading period which occurred in the mornings. The order of observing children was randomized each day. Each child was observed for 5 minutes daily, using a 15-second observe and 15-second record observational format. Only the first problem or desirable behavior, along with the presence or absence of teacher attention, observed during the 15-second observe interval, was recorded. The daily average percent of problem behaviors was computed by summing the three types of problem behaviors and dividing by the number of 15- second intervals children were observed. The mean percent


of the teacher's attention to desirable and problem behaviors was computed by dividing episodes of attention to problems or desirable behaviors by the number of observational units.

Two observers were not informed as to the reasons for observing. Prior to the start of base-line observations, the observers reached ~> 80% agreement on each category for four consecutive sessions. During the different phases of the project, weekly reliability checks were made. Average observer agreement [agreements/(agreements and disagreements)] was 99% for type of activity (e.g., talking, on-task, out of seat), 99% for problem versus desirable behaviors, and 99% for teacher attention.

Teacher Ratings

Teachers filled out the Classroom Adjustment Rating Scale (Lorion et al., 1975) on each child at the start of the project and following the end of consultation sessions. This instrument has 41, 5-point, behaviorally oriented items. Higher scores indicate more serious problems. The three principal factors are acting-out, moodiness, and learning. The scale has high test-retest reliability.

The Classroom Information Sheet (Gesten et al., 1979), a question- naire aimed at measuring classroom routine, structure, and social climate of elementary school classes, was filled out by teachers prior to the start of the intervention, and at program end. There are 27, 5-point social climate items and five factors: disruptiveness, teacher-student closeness, good student con- formity, curiosity, competition-industry. There are 15, 5-point classroom routine items and three factors: traditional-class, innovative-class, and traditional-class-rigidity. Lower scores indicate the items better describe children in the classroom. The four items of classroom structure measure physical ar- rangements, teacher instruction time, children's work-time, and teacher location.

Following the intervention, both teachers completed a 5-point scale, indicating how satisfied they were with the programs (higher numbers indicating more positive feelings).

R E S U L T S

Changes over the 15 weeks (1-4; 5-6; 7-11 ; 12-15) due to the interventions were assessed by comparing children's problem behaviors and teacher attending behaviors prior to, during, and after consultation sessions. Changes were also evaluated by pre-post teacher ratings on child functioning and classroom environment variables. Relations between behavioral measures and teacher ratings were also evaluated.


Behavioral Measures

Table I presents the percent of problem behaviors and the percent of

teacher at tention to desirable behaviors, at four time points, for both problem

and nonproblem children in both classes. Percent of problem behaviors (P), at tention to desirable behaviors (DA), and attention to problem behaviors (PA),

over the four time periods, for problem children in the process and behavioral classes were analyzed using the Friedman two-way analysis of variance (Siegel,

1956). Significant changes over the four periods were obtained in the behavioral class only for P%, X 2 = 7.3, p < .05, and DA%, X~ = 8.2, p < .05; P% for behav-

ioral problem children was reduced by 27% from base line to follow-up, whereas

DA increased by 9%. Similar trends were also found for the nonproblem child

in the behavioral class. The teacher provided behavioral consultation also decreased

Table I. Problem Behaviors and Attention to Desirable Behaviors Over Time

During During During During base line weeks 5-6 weeks 7-11 follow-up

(%) (%) (%) (%)

Percentage of problem behaviors Behavioral

Problem children a (n = 3) 53 56 38 26

Nonproblem child b (n = 1) 29 30 16 14

Process Problem children

(n = 4) 41 37 34 42 Nonproblem children

(n = 2) 12 12 5 12

Percentage attention to desirable behaviors Behavioral

Problem children (n = 3) 5 5 11 14

Nonproblem child (n = 1) 3 2 2 6

Process Problem children

(n = 4) 4 3 3 4 Nonproblem children

(n = 2) 3 1 1 1

a One program child moved during the first week of the consultation. bThe teacher devised several behavioral programs for one control child; therefore, data on this child was eliminated from the table.


attention to problem behaviors by 4% (from 8 to 4%), however, this change was not significant, X~ = 6.1, p < . 10. In the classroom provided process consultation, there were no significant changes over the four time periods.

"Behavioral" children were compared to "Process" children during each of the four time periods using the Mann-Whitney U test (Siegel, 1956). Problem children in the behavioral class evidenced significantly higher problem behaviors during the base line period (U = 0, p < .05, 2-tailed), however, there were no significant differences during the treatment or follow-up periods. In regard to attention to desirable behaviors, there were no significant differences between behavioral and process problem children during base line and treatment weeks 5 -6 ; however, the teacher provided behavioral consultation attended to significantly more desirable behaviors during weeks 7-11 (U = 0, p < .05) and the follow-up (U = 0, p < .05) period.

Teacher Ratings o f Children

Table II presents pre-pos t ratings on the Classroom Adjustment Rating Scale (CARS) for problem children in the behavioral and process classes. Em- ploying the Mann-Whitney U test, there were no significant differences between either prebehavioral and preprocess factor scores or postbehavioral and postprocess factor scores.

Overall, teachers rated children as evidencing improved functioning over the course of the intervention. When behavioral and process children's pre scores on the acting-out factor were compared with their postscores, significant improvements were noted using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks test (T = 0, p < .05, 2-tailed). Directional improvements were obtained on the moodiness, learning, and total factors.

Relations Between Behavioral and Rating Measures

Three behavioral measures: percent of problem behaviors (P), attention to desirable (DA), and problem (PA) behaviors; were related to pre-CARS

Table II. Prepoint Versus Postpoint CARS

Behavioral Process

Pre Post Pre Post

Acting-out 31.00 8.88 21.00 9.17 28.00 2.94 20.25 4.03 Moodiness 21.33 3.51 17.67 3.51 23.25 4.50 20.00 4.08 Learning 28.67 15.01 27.33 13.50 37.00 3.83 34.00 5.89 Total 87.00 17.35 75.00 18.74 99.00 14.00 89.00 16.99

CARS X SD X SD X SD X SD


Table III. Relations Between Behavioral Measures and Prepoint CARS (n = 10)

Pre-CARS P% DA% PA%

Acting-out .85 a -.47 .60 b Moodiness .63 b -.27 .35 Learning ,44 -. 30 -. 17 Total .66 b -.39 -.20

ap < .01. bp .< .05.

factor scores in Table III. Behavioral scores were computed from the first week's average score for each child. Significant relations were found between P%, and acting-out, moodiness, and total CARS factor scores, and between PA% and CARS acting-out factor score. Children who were generally rated as having more problems actually manifested significantly more observable problem behaviors. It is noteworthy that the more teachers perceived children as having acting-out problems, the more they gave attention to these problem behaviors (PA), and the less they gave attention to desirable behaviors (DA) (the last relationship, however, was not significant).

Teacher Ratings o f Social Climate

There were few consistent pre-post changes on the factors representing the social climate and routine sections of the Classroom Information Sheet. On the social climate disruptiveness-discipline problem factor, more positive changes were identified by the teacher provided behavioral consultation. At postpoint, this teacher indicated that children in her classroom were tess restless, required less discipline, complained less about school work, and misbehaved less when left alone. The teacher provided process consultation indicated that children in her classroom were less inattentive and required less discipline; however, her children also complained more about school work and more often called out answers out of turn.

Teacher Ratings o f Program Satisfaction

At program end, the teacher provided behavioral consultation indicated that she felt positive about the program, the process teacher felt very positive about her program.


DISCUSSION

The study's principal finding was that problem behaviors and teacher attention to desirable behaviors in the classroom provided behavioral consultation changed significantly over the course of the intervention. It is interesting that during Phase 1 of the behavioral consultation (weeks 5-6) when behavioral principles were discussed and goals set to increase attention to desirable behaviors, there were no observable changes in children's or teacher's behaviors. Dramatic changes in teacher attending to desirable behaviors and children's problem behaviors were noted during Phase 2 (weeks 7-11) when immediate feedback was provided and specific individualized interventions were discussed for each child. Even after consultation had terminated during follow-up, further increases in teacher attention to desirable behaviors and decreases to problem behaviors were noted. Such findings indicated that merely discussing behavioral principles led to few classroom changes; however, providing direct feedback and more specific individual strategies led toward changes which were maintained 4 weeks following termination of consultation sessions. That changes were maintained is noteworthy since the follow-up period was at the end of the school year, a time when children tend to be most restless and disruptive. The results can be interpreted in an alternative way: the children's rates of problem behaviors may have been reduced merely by the passage of time. Without the presence of a control class, it is impossible to rule out this explanation. However, given the sharp reductions of problem behaviors with onset of Phase 2, and the relatively stable rates of problem behaviors before this intervention, it seeems more con- vincing to identify the behavioral strategies as the components bringing about salutary changes.

The process intervention resulted in nonsignificant decreases in problem behaviors during weeks 5-11; however, during follow-up, problem behaviors returned to base line levels. Consultation focusing on creating a supportive relationship, to help the teacher better deal with and solve problems, did not significantly alter classroom contingencies or rates of problem behaviors.

After the follow-up period, the teacher provided behavioral consultation reported that she was more in control of the class, more positive to children when displaying appropriate behaviors, and more consistent in enforcing rules (several children were required to stay indoors during recess if they were too disruptive during the day, one child's parents continued to receive positive and negative notes describing daffy conduct). In general, this teacher felt positive about the behavioral intervention and the objectives it had accomplished. The teacher provided process consultation stated that she felt better about her teaching abilities and more comfortable with problem children. She was very appreciative of the opportunity to talk with a professional about classroom problems and overall felt very positive towards the intervention.


In both the behavioral and process classrooms, the nonproblem children tended to be affected in similar ways as problem children. For example, the nonproblem child's problem behavior rate in the behavioral class dropped during Phase 2 of the intervention and remained at this level during follow-up. Attention to desirable behaviors increased for this child during the follow-up. Such generalization findings are particularly surprising since no feedback pertaining to this child was given to the teacher and no specific behavioral strategies were implemented. Nonproblem children in the process classroom also evidenced reductions of problem behaviors during weeks 7-11 ; however, such changes were not maintained during the follow-up period.

On the CARS, children's mean scores in both behavioral and process classrooms improved, and there were no differences either at pre- or postpoint between the classes. Such findings are discrepant with data from behavioral measures. CARS were filled out at the conclusion of consultation sessions, a time when both teachers had noticed reductions in classroom problem behaviors, and therefore their ratings of individual children were more positive than at prepoint. Had CARS been filled out following the follow-up period for the teacher provided process consultation, her ratings might have been less positive.

In general, there were strong significant relations between observed behavioral measures and teacher ratings of children's functioning. The higher the child's CARS acting-out factor score; the more problem behaviors manifested by the child, the more attention received for problem behaviors, and the less attention for desirable behaviors (the last relationship did not reach significance). Such findings indicate that those children whom teachers view as having acting-out problems, tend to earn attention for acting-out rather than following rules, and conceivably this maintains their problem behaviors. The behavioral intervention, which successfully did alter these contingencies, resulted in reductions in children's problem behaviors.

Few consistent findings emerged on the social climate scales. The teacher provided behavioral consultation generally rated her children as evidencing less disruptiveness and following rules better. Changes on this dimension for the process classroom were more mixed, with both positive and' negative changes.

Due to several methodological flaws, findings from this study need to be interpreted with caution. Problems included (a) poor class-matches on racial variables and initial levels of problem behaviors, (b) small sample sizes, (c) data losses (one child moved; a child in the process class, whose family was involved in the therapy after consultation ended, was not excluded from the sample) and (d) utilizing rating scores by individuals directly involved in interventions. In addition to controlling for the above flaws, future studies might benefit from utilizing an even wider assortment of outcome criterion measures (including those tapping academic and socioemotional characteristics), using one behavioral technique at a time so that change can be attributed to specific interventions,


and employing longer term follow-ups to determine if early dysfunctions were successfully ameliorated.

School consultation represents an increasingly popular activity among mental heal th professionals. Anecdotal testimonies concerning the effectiveness o f particular approaches abound; unfor tunately , however, such impressionistic articles do not provide a requisite data base for judging differential effectiveness of intervention models, The present study compared relatively distinct consulta-

tion approaches and found the behavioral approach to be most effective in reducing problem behaviors during the intervention and follow-up period. More

comparative studies, evaluating diverse models such as group process, social action, ecological, behavioral, and process (as well as combinations of these approaches) should be implemented to help determine which approaches are most effective with which types of problem areas. Although not the thrust of the present study, future research might also prof i tably be directed to exploring the differential impact of interventions on culturally diverse students.

REFERENCE NOTE

Jason, L. A., Sibley, D., & Ferone, L. Behavioral versus process communication styles in consultation. Unpublished manuscript, 1976. (Available from Leonard A. Jason, Psychology Department, 2219 North Kenmore Avenue, De Paul University, Chicago, IU. 60614).

REFERENCES

Alinsky, S. Rules for radicals. New York: Random House, 1972. Ayilon, T., Layman, D., & Kandel, H. J. A behavioral educational alternative to drug control

of hyperactive children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1975, 8, 137-146. Azrin, N. H., & Powers, M. A. Eliminating classroom disturbance of emotionally disturbed

children by positive practice procedure. Behavior Therapy, 1975, 6, 525-534. Caplan, G. Principles of preventive psychiatry. New York: Basic Books, 1964. Cossairt, A., Hall, R. V., & Hopkins, B. L. The effects of experimenter instructions, feed-

back, and praise on teacher praise and student attending behavior. Journal of Ap- plied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 89-100.

Gesten, E. L., Cowen, E. L., & DeStefano, M. A. A teacher method for the assessment of primary grade class environments. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1979, 7, in press.

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. Americans view their mental health." A nationwide in- terview survey. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Jason, L. A., Gesten, E., & Yock, T. Relational and behavioral interventions with economical- ly disadvantaged toddlers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1976, 46, 270-278.

Jones, F. H., & Eimers, R. C. Role playing to train elementary teachers to use classroom management "Skill Package." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1975, 8, 421- 433.

Kelly, J. The quest for valid preventive interventions. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1970.

Linoff, M. G. An investigation of attitudes of teachers toward student problem behaviors using behavior modification and consultation groups (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 33, 1517A. (University Microfilms No. 72-22, 918)


Lippitt, R. Dimensions of a consultant's job. Journal of Social Issues, 1959, 15, 5-12. Lotion, R. P., Cowen, E. L., & Caldwell, R. A. Normative and parametric analyses of school

maladjustment. American Journal o f Community Psychology, 1975, 3, 391-401. Mannino, F. V., & Shore, M. F. The effects of consultation. A review of empirical studies.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 1975, 3, 1-21. McKeown, Jr., D., Henry, E. A., & Forehand, R. Generalization to the classroom of principles

of behavior modification taught to teachers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1975, 13, 85-92.

Meyers, J. Consultee-centered consultation with a teacher as a technique in behavior management. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1975,3, 111-121.

Randolph, D. L. Behavioral consultation as a means of improving the quality of counseling program. School Co, unselor, 1972, 20, 30-35.

Reisman, J. M., & Yamokoski, T. Psychotherapy and friendship: An analysis of the communications of friends. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1974, 21, 269-273.

Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1956.

Solomon, R. W., & Wahler, R. G. Peer reinforcement control of classroom problem behavior. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 49-56.

Stolz, S. B. Overview of NIMH support of research in Behavior Therapy. Journal o f Ap- plied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 509-515.

behavioral versus process consultation interventions in school settings

Documents