This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 11 October 2014, At: 06:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

Journal of Educational andPsychological ConsultationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hepc20

The Effects of TwoSequential-Request Strategieson Teachers' Acceptabilityand Use of a ClassroomInterventionBrian K. Martens , Susan Q. Kelly & Maureen T.DiskinPublished online: 08 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Brian K. Martens , Susan Q. Kelly & Maureen T. Diskin (1996)The Effects of Two Sequential-Request Strategies on Teachers' Acceptability and Useof a Classroom Intervention, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,7:3, 211-221, DOI: 10.1207/s1532768xjepc0703_2

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0703_2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION, 7(3), 211-223 Copyright @ 1996, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

The Effects of Two Seauential-Reauest Strategies on ~eacher? ~ c c e ~ t a b k t ~ and Use of a Classroom Intervention

Brian K. Martens, Susan Q. Kelly, and Maureen T. Diskin

Syracuse University

This study examined the effects of two sequential-request strategies- foot-in-the-door (FITD) and door-in-the-face (D1TF)-on teachers' ratings of treatment acceptability and implementation of a classroom intervention. Sixty-one teachers were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 experimental condi- tions in which they complied with a small initial request, failed to comply with a large initial request, or received no initial request. Teachers then rated the acceptability of a classroom intervention that they were asked to implement for 1 hr on each of 2 consecutive school days. Results showed the mean acceptability ratings for the DITF condition to be significantly lower than the control condition, but neither differed significantly from the FITD condition. Fewer teachers in the DITF condition implemented the intervention than controls. The implications of these results for applying social influence strategies to school consultation are discussed.

School consultation is an indirect model of service delivery wherein a school psychologist works cooperatively with a teacher to address the learning and adjustment problems of children (Gutkin & Curtis, 1990; Zins, Kratochwill, & Elliott, 1993). Within this model, teachers as consultees are responsible for selecting and implementing school-based interventions developed in partnership with the consultant. The service delivery goals of consultation are achieved when the teacher's interven- tion efforts result in improved student behavior or enable students with

Correspondence should be addressed to Brian K. Martens, Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, 430 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244-2340.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

21 2 MARTENS, KELLY, DISKIN

special needs to remain in the regular classroom setting (e.g., Gutkin, Henning-Stout, & Piersel, 1988).

In order to identrfy and select among intervention alternatives, the teacher and consultant must engage in a series of face-to-face meetings or interviews (Gutkin & Curtis, 1982; Witt, 1990). The goals of these interviews have been discussed at length elsewhere (e.g., Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990) and generally involve identlfylng a target problem, analyzing conditions surrounding the problem, developing and imple- menting an intervention plan, and evaluating the plan's success. Re- gardless of the problem targeted, interventions that are suggested during consultation typically require some change in teacher behavior as a means of accommodating the student. These changes may require teachers to learn new skills (e.g., momentary time sampling), alter their instructional or managerial practices (e.g., provide student feedback through public posting), or make use of existing resources in different ways (e.g., assign high-achieving students as peer tutors). Historically then, school consultation has maintained a dual set of goals-to solve the immediate problem of the client and to increase the consultee's skills in dealing with similar problems in the future (Gutkin & Curtis, 1990).

Research concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions has shown that teachers are not passive recipients of consultant sugges- tions, and in fact they may reject these suggestions because they involve too much time, are viewed as ineffective, contradict personal beliefs, or reduce personal freedom (Elliott, 1988; Wickstrom & Witt, 1993; Witt & Martens, 1988). When faced with consultee resistance to a suggested intervention, the consultant may choose to (a) help the consultee develop a less suitable but more acceptable intervention alternative, (b) intenslfy his or her efforts to proceed with the original intervention and hope the consultee cooperates, or (c) attempt to reduce resistance by altering the consultee's attitudes and perceptions. It has been suggested that the latter approach of strategically influencing consultee percep- tions may constitute a third goal of the consultation process. That is, in addition to problem-solving and skill-building tasks, effective school consultation may also involve an interpersonal influence task (Erchul & Raven, in press; Gutkin & Conoley, 1990; Martens, 1993).

With few exceptions, interpersonal influence has received little atten- tion in the consultation literature. Following attempts to promote the use of behavioral technology in a state institution, Reppucci and Saunders (1974) concluded that the ability to m o w staff behavior was critical to program success. Tharp and Wetzel (1969) anticipated the difficulties in relying on third-party adults as treatment agents by suggesting that consultee behavior might be controlled by sources of social reinforcement other than the consultant (e.g., supervising

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

SEQUENTIAL REQUESTS 21 3

teachers and principals). These authors suggested further that such individuals might be strategically recruited to promote consultees' adherence to treatment plans. Martin (1978) discussed the relevance of social power to school consultation, suggesting that effective consult- ants are able to exploit both expert and referent power bases. Recently, Erchul and Raven (in press) expanded on Martin's argument by de- scribing how all six of French and Raven's (1959) social power bases might be applied to the consultation process.

Interpersonal influence strategies have received considerable atten- tion in social psychology, and several of these seem relevant to school consultation as means of reducing teacher resistance (Erchul, 1993; Hughes, 1983; Tingstrom, Little, & Stewart, 1990). Two particularly well-known influence strategies in social psychology are the foot-in-the- door (FITD) and door-in-the-face (DITF) techniques (Cialdini et al., 1975; Freedman & Fraser, 1966). Both techniques represent compliance- gaining strategies in which making an initial request is expected to increase the chances that a person will comply with a second request. In the case of FITD, the initial request is small or trivial, such as answering a question over the phone, and all individuals agree to respond. When asked to comply with a second, larger request (e.g., participating in a 2-hr survey), these individuals are more likely to agree, presumably to maintain consistency in their self-perceptions. In the case of DITF, the initial request is large (e.g., donating 2 hr a week for 2 years), and individuals typically do not agree to its performance. However, when asked to comply with a second, smaller request (e.g., donating 2 hr for a field trip), these individuals are more likely to agree, presumably because a concession has been made and they also feel compelled to make a concession, The goal of the present study was to examine the effects of the FITD and DITF strategies on teachers' ratings of pretreatment acceptability and compliance with a request to implement a classroom intervention. As such, this study marked the first experi- mental application of compliance-gaining strategies to school consulta- tion.

METHOD

Participants

Participants included 61 elementary school teachers (kindergarten through sixth grade) from four buildings in the central New York area. The teachers volunteered to participate after reading a description of the study that was posted in their school buildings a week earlier. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

21 4 MARTENS, KELLY, DISKIN

majority of teachers were female (90%), with a mean age of 41.8 years and an average 16 years of teaching experience. In addition, 55.7% of the teachers held a master's degree and 21.7% taught special education resource. Thirty-nine percent of the teachers were responsible for children at multiple grade levels, and participants reported an average enrollment of 20 students in both their regular and special education classrooms. When asked what they saw as the primary cause of children's learning and adjustment problems (Martens, Peterson, Witt, & Cirone, 1986), 55% of the participants endorsed the item "factors within the child's home," 27% endorsed the item "factors within the child," 3% endorsed the item "factors within the classroom," and 15% endorsed a combination of items.

Experimental Conditions

The study was conducted during 30 min at the end of a regularly scheduled faculty meeting in each school building. Teachers were asked to respond to a set of questionnaires and were then randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions described next. After teachers individually completed the task specific to their experimental condition, they were asked if they would be willing to implement a classroom intervention for 1 hr each during the following 2 consecutive school days. Before leaving the experiment, each teacher rated the acceptability of the intervention (pretreatment) and was given a packet of materials needed to implement it and rate its acceptability a second time (posttreatment).

FlTD condition. Teachers assigned to the FITD condition were asked to comply with a small initial request prior to being asked to implement the classroom intervention. Compliance with the initial request occurred during the experimental session and consisted of having each teacher generate 15 different praise statements for students in their class (e.g., "Excellent job!", "I'm so proud of you!") and record these on a form that was provided. As required by the FITD manipulation, all teachers agreed to comply with the initial request and completed the recording form.

DIllT condition. Teachers in the DITF condition were asked to comply with a large initial request prior to being asked to implement the classroom intervention. Specifically, teachers were asked to volunteer for a follow-up activity concerning their instructional practices. The activity was described as requiring approximately 1 hr each day after

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

SEQUENTIAL REQUESTS 21 5

school for 1 week. During this time, teachers would be required to drive downtown to the university, participate in interviews about their instructional practices for the day, and complete several questionnaires. After reading the description of the follow-up activity, teachers were asked to indicate their willingness to participate by circling "yes" or "no." As required by the DITF manipulation, all teachers failed to comply with the large initial request by declining to participate in the follow-up activity.

Control condition. Teachers in the control condition were asked to implement the classroom intervention without any prior request. The control condition, therefore, represented a single-request condition to be used as comparison.

Dependent Measures

Classroom intervention. Teachers were asked to implement a class- room intervention during 1 hr on each of 2 consecutive school days. The intervention consisted of praising any student in their classroom for desired behavior during each of twelve 5-min intervals and writing the student's name on a recording sheet. Teachers were free to select the same or a different student during each interval. To complete the assignment, teachers were provided with the same description of the intervention they read during the experimental session and two re- cording sheets, each containing 12 name blanks. Teachers were in- structed to complete as much of the assignment as they could and to respond as honestly as possible. Teachers were asked to return any completed recording sheets to the main office in their building at the end of the 2 days.

Intervention Rating Profile-I5 (IRP-15). Both before and after at- tempting the intervention, teachers were asked to rate the procedure using the IRP-15 (Martens, Witt, Elliott, & Darveaux, 1985). The IRP-15 is a 15-item Likert scale that assesses teachers' acceptability of suggested interventions. Respondents rate their level of agreement with various statements using a 6-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Sample items were "Overall, this strategy would be beneficial for children" and "Most teachers would find this strategy appropriate for use in the classreom." Higher scores on the IRP-15 indicate greater acceptability. Factor analysis has revealed one primary factor (General Acceptability), with all items loading from .82 to .95. In addition, the IRP-15 is a reliable measure with a Cronbach's alpha of .98.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

216 MARTENS, KELLY, DISKIN

Procedure

Participants at each school were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions and given a packet of materials containing a consent form and a demographic questionnaire. Depending on the condition to which they were assigned, teachers also received a descrip- tion of either the praise statement listing activity (FITD condition) or the follow-up activity (DITF condition). All teachers received a description of the classroom intervention and a pretreatment IRP-15. One of three female experimenters was also assigned to teachers in each condition (experimenter assignment was counterbalanced across schools) and was responsible for distributing and collecting packets, reading instructions aloud, and answering any questions that arose.

After teachers individually completed the listing activity or indicated their unwillingness to participate in the follow-up activity, they were asked to read the intervention description along with the experimenter. Teachers were then asked to indicate their willingness to implement the intervention by circling "yes" or "no" on the description form and to complete the pretreatment IRP-15. Before leaving the experiment, teachers were given a packet containing another description of the intervention procedure, two recording sheets, and a posttreatment IRP-15. At the end of 2 days following the experimental session, an experimenter returned to each of the schools to collect any forms that were returned.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The goal of this study was to examine the effects of two sequential- request strategies on teachers' (a) pretreatment acceptability ratings of a suggested classroom intervention (i.e., systematic praise) and (b) actual implementation of the intervention. Results of a one-way analysis of variance indicated that pretreatment ratings on the IRP-15 differed significantly between the three groups, F(2, 57) = 4.65, p < .05. Post hoc comparisons showed the mean acceptability rating for the DITF group (3.9) to be significantly lower than the mean of the control group (4.7), but neither differed significantly from the mean of the FITD group (4.4). There were no significant differences in posttreatment ratings of acceptability between the three groups for the 28 teachers who imple- mented the intervention (control = 4.6, FITD = 4.2, DITF = 4.4), and pretreatment acceptability ratings did not differ between regular (M = 4.3) and special education (M = 4.5) teachers.

Two contingency tables and associated chi-squares were calculated to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

SEQUENTIAL REQUESTS 21 7

determine if intervention implementation (i.e., the second request) was independent of assignment to either the control or experimental groups (see Table 1). As shown in the table, implementation was independent of membership in either the control or FITD groups, ?(I, N = 41) = 0.6, p > .05. In contrast, implementation appeared to be dependent on assignment to either the control or DITF groups, with a chi-square that approached significance, x2(1, N = 40) = 3.6, p = .057. These results indicate that approximately the same number of teachers implemented the intervention in the single-request control and FITD conditions (12 and 10, respectively), whereas fewer teachers implemented the inter- vention in the DITF condition than controls (6 and 12, respectively). Regular and special education teachers did not differ significantly in the proportions who implemented the intervention (47% and 46%, respec- tively).

Correlational analyses revealed significant inverse relationships be- tween pretreatment acceptability ratings and years of teaching experi- ence (r = - .32, p < .05) and between implementing the intervention and grade taught (r = - .32, p < .05). These results indicated that more experienced teachers tended to rate the intervention procedure as less acceptable and that the procedure was less apt to be implemented by teachers at higher grades. One explanation for both of these findings may be that teachers who have spent more time in the schools or who teach at higher grade levels expect students to function more indepen- dently. The number of students in the classroom was not correlated significantly with acceptability ratings or implementation. As might be expected, pretreatment acceptability ratings correlated positively with homework completion (r = .30, p < .05) and were predictive of acceptability ratings after attempting the intervention for the 28 teachers who returned the questionnaires (r = .73, p < .05).

The results indicate that use of the FITD sequential-request strategy did not increase teachers' preintervention acceptability ratings or affect rates of implementation beyond the single-request condition. One

TABLE 1 Frequencies and Percentages of Teachers in the Experimental Conditions Who

Implemented the Intervention Versus Controls

FITD Versus Control DITF Versus Control

Not Completed Completed Not Completed Completed

Control 8 (40%) 12 (60%) 8 (40%) 12 (60%) FITD 11 (52%) 10 (48%) DITF 14 (70%) 6 (30%)

Note. FIT.D = foot-in-the-door; DITF = door-in-the-face.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

218 MARTENS, KELLY, DISKIN

explanation for this finding may involve the context in which the two requests were made. According to the availability hypothesis, the FITD strategy is effective to the extent that it increases the availability to participants of favorable information about themselves (Fern, Monroe, & Ada, 1986). Because all teachers volunteered to participate in the study, they may have already perceived themselves as individuals who would comply with experimenter requests. Soliciting volunteers, there- fore, may have increased compliance rates in all experimental groups while mitigating the effects of the FITD manipulation. One way to strengthen the manipulation in the future might be to increase the magnitude of the initial request, perhaps by requesting one instructional change, then another (Beaman, Cole, Preston, Klentz, & Steblay, 1983). The difficulty with this strategy, however, is that if the initial request is too large, teachers may fail to comply. Even though significant findings were not obtained for the FITD group, it should be noted that these teachers completed an additional task with no detrimental effect on their perceptions of or compliance with a second, larger request.

Such was not the case for teachers in the DITF condition. Not only did teachers in this group fail to comply with the large initial request, but being asked to do so sigxuficantly lowered their pretreatment accept- ability ratings and decreased their rates of compliance with the second request. The DITF strategy is believed to be effective because it makes available to participants favorable information about the requestor. This occurs when requestors concede their position on the large initial request, thereby encouraging participants to concede their position of noncompliance (Fern et al., 1986). In this study, asking teachers for a large initial commitment that they were unwilling to make appeared to foster unfavorable perceptions of the experimenter as evidenced by reduced acceptability ratings for the suggested intervention. Rather than casting the requestor in a positive light, the large request may have been viewed as an unreasonable attempt to lure teachers into donating more of their time. Although further research is needed using initial requests of a lower magnitude, the present findings caution against use of the DITF strategy when asking teachers to attempt an intervention. Any favorable perceptions that are produced by conceding one's position must overshadow the negative perceptions created from making an unreasonable request in the first place.

Because this study marks the first attempt to apply sequential-request strategies to aspects of school consultation, the findings must be interpreted with caution. First, a consultation relationship was not established with any of the teachers participating in the study. Instead, teachers were asked in a group context to attempt a classroom interven- tion. Because this approach controls for relationship variables as well as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

SEQUENTIAL REQUESTS 21 9

subtle verbal and nonverbal cues on behalf of the requestor, the extent to which similar results would be obtained in a dyadic consultant-consultee relationship awaits future research. Second, only one type of intervention was examined in the present study (systematic praise) and this was not suggested in response to teacher-identified problems. Previous research has shown that child, treatment, and context variables are likely to influence teachers' ratings of treatment acceptability (Elliott, 1988), and it seems reasonable that these same variables may influence the effectiveness of compliance-gaining strate- gies. Finally, a variety of compliance-gaining strategies have been reported in the social psychological literature including for example the use of decoys, self-generated persuasion, vivid appeal, and message quality (Gonzales, Aronson, & Costanzo, 1988; Gregory, Cialdini, & Carpenter, 1982; Kenrick & Gutierres, 1980). Additional research is needed to determine which, if any, of these strategies can be applied to consultant-teacher interactions as a means of increasing the integrity of treatment implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Portions of this article were presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, August 1994.

We thank Rachel Morgan and Sandy Monachino for their help in data collection.

REFERENCES

Beaman, A. L., Cole, C. M., Preston, M., Klentz, B., & Steblay, N. M. (1983). Fifteen years of foot-in-the-door research: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 181-196.

Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York: Plenum Press.

Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. B., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face tech- nique. Journal of Personalify and Social Psychology, 32, 206-215.

Elliott, S. N. (1988). Acceptability of behavioral treatments: Review of variables that influence treatment selection. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 68-80.

Erchul, W. P. (1993). Selected interpersonal perspectives in consultation research. School Psychology Quarferly, 8, 38-49.

Erchul, W. P., & Raven, B. H. (in press). Social power in school consultation: A comprehensive view. Journal of School Psychology.

Fern, E . F., Monroe, K. B., & Avila, R. A. (1986). Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 144-152.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

220 MARTENS, KELLY, DISKIN

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Gonzales, M. H., Aronson, E., & Costanzo, M. (1988). Increasing the effectiveness of energy auditors: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1049-1066.

Gregory, W. L., Cialdini, R. B., & Carpenter, K. M. (1982). Self-relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does imagining make it so? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 89-99.

Gutkin, T. B., & Conoley, J. C. (1990). Reconceptualizing school psychology from a service delivery perspective: Implications for practice, training, and research. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 203-223.

Gutkin, T. B., & Curtis, M. J. (1982). School-based consultation: Theory and techniques. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (pp. 796-828). New York: Wiley.

Gutkin, T. B., & Curtis, M. J. (1990). School-based consultation: Theory, techniques, and research. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 577-611). New York: Wiley.

Gutkin, T. B., Henning-Stout, M., & Piersel, W. C. (1988). Impact of a district-wide behavioral consultation prereferral intervention service on patterns of school psycho- logical service delivery. Professional School Psychology, 3, 301-308.

Hughes, J. N. (1983). The application of cognitive dissonance theory to consultation. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 349-357.

Kenrick, D. T., & Gutierres, S. E. (1980). Contrast effects in judgements of attractiveness: When beauty becomes a social problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 131-140.

Martens, B. K. (1993). A behavioral approach to consultation. In J. E. Zins, T. R. KratochwiU, & S. N. Elliott (Eds.), Handbook of consultation services for children: Applica- tions in educational and clinical settings (pp. 65-86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Martens, B. K., Peterson, R. L., Witt, J. C., & Cirone, S. (1986). Teacher perceptions of school based interventions. Exceptional Children, 53, 213-223.

Martens, B. K., Witt, J. C., Elliott, S. N., & Darveaux, D. X. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional School Psychol- ogy, 3, 271-281.

Martin, R. P. (1978). Expert and referent power: A framework for understanding and maximizing consultation effectiveness. Journal of School Psychology, 16, 49-55.

Reppucci, N. D., & Saunders, J. T. (1974). Social psychology of behavior modification: Problems of implementation in natural settings. American Psychologist, 29, 649-660.

Tharp, R. G., & Wetzel, R. J. (1969). Behavior modification in the natural environment. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tingstrom, D. H., Little, S. G., & Stewart, K. J. (1990). School consultation from a social psychological perspective: A review. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 41-50.

Wickstrom, K. F., & Witt, J. C. (1993). Resistance within school-based consultation. In J. E. Zins, T. R. Kratochwill, & S. N. Elliott (Eds.), Handbook of consultation services for children: Applications in educational and clinical settings (pp. 159-178). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Witt, J. C. (1990). Face-to-face verbal interaction in school-based consultation: A review of the literature. School Psychology Quarterly, 5, 199-210.

Witt, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (1988). Problems with problem solving consultation: A re-analysis of assumptions, methods, and goals. School Psychology Reviezu, 17, 211-226.

Zins, J . E., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1993). Current status of the field. In J. E.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

SEQUENTIAL REQUESTS 221

Zins, T. R. Kratochwill, & S. N. Elliott (Eds.), Handbook of consultation s-cesfor children: Applications in educational and clinical settings (pp. 1-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brian K. Martens is an associate professor of psychology at Syracuse University. His research interests include applied behavior analysis and school consultation.

Susan Q. Kelly is a doctoral student in the school psychology program at Syracuse University. She is interested in school-based intervention and consultation.

Maureen T. Diskin is a doctoral student in the school psychology program at Syracuse University. Her research interests are social influence and school consultation.

Action Editor: Joseph E. Zins

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

49 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014