JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION, 6(1), 73-81 Copyright © 1995, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. A Consultation Model for School Psychological Services: Twenty Years Later Joel Meyers The University at Albany State University of New York This article reviews Meyers’ 1973 article, “A Consultation Model for School Psychological Services,” which proposed a model of school-based consul- tation. Key components from the original article are discussed, including: (a) four variables reflecting the process of interaction between consultant and consultee and (b) a description of the content of consultation based on four different approaches to school-based consultation, Each of these components is discussed by considering how it is used in schools, how it has evolved in the past 20 years, and how it is conceptualized at the present time. Particular focus is given to the influence of current social conditions and to directions for research regarding school-based consul- tation, The article, “A Consultation Model for School Psychological Services” (Meyers, 1973), differentiated between the process and outcome of consultation. It described four process variables believed to be important in facilitating effective consultation relationships and the content of consultation by presenting a four-level model for the delivery of school psychological services. The purpose of this article is to review the original article’s approaches to the process and content of consultation and to discuss how they have evolved in the past 20 years. ‘THE PROCESS OF CONSULTATION The 1973 article addressed the process of consultation by considering four variables relevant to the relationship between consultant and Requests for reprints should be sent to Joel Meyers, State University of New York at Albany Education 232, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222,74° MEYERS consultee: (a) consultation as a collaborative interchange between col- leagues, (b) the freedom of the consultee to accept or reject reeommen- dations derived from consultation, (c) emphasis on the consultee’s contributions to successful outcomes, and (d) joint responsibility of the consultant and consultee for the outcome of consultation. These ideas continue to be seen as relevant to the effective practice of consultation (e.g., see Gutkin & Curtis, 1990). The view of consultation as a collaborative interchange between professional colleagues, each with their own areas of expertise, conflicts with other approaches to the consultation process that view the con- sultant as an expert who will tell the consultee how to resolve the problem. One way to implement and maintain a collaborative consulta- tion relationship is by communicating clearly to the consultee that he or she has the freedom to accept or reject any ideas, suggestions, or recommendations that derive from consultation. This principle recog- nizes the importance of maintaining the consultee’s active involvement in consultation. The consultee is most likely to implement those ideas that he or she has a role in developing and is least likely to implement those ideas that are imposed by the consultant. One concrete way to follow this principle is to present ideas and make suggestions in a tentative manner that explicitly invites the consultee’s response. RESEARCH CONCERNING THE PROCESS OF CONSULTATION At the time that the process of consultation was introduced as a potentially important factor in consultation, there was no research supporting the impact of these variables. Recent research conceptualizes consultation as an interpersonal process and offers a promising direction for further investigation (e.g., see Erchul, Hughes, Meyers, Hickman, & Braden, 1992). Erchul et al. (1992) described two approaches to process research. The first makes use of “monadic” variables reflecting the behavior of either the consultant or the consultee. Examples include the consultant's use of questions or empathy, the consultee’s perception of consultant facilita- tion, and consultee resistance (see Meyers, Parsons, & Martin, 1979; Parsons & Meyers, 1984). The second approach is based on an interper- sonal perspective and uses dyadic variables that consider the behavior of the consultant and consultee simultaneously. For example, tape record- ings of verbal interactions between consultant and consultee have been examined using interpersonal coding systems to evaluate the consultant-consultee dyad (Erchul, 1987). Other research that exempli-CONSULTATION MODEL 75 fied an interpersonal perspective without specifically examining verbal interactions between consultants and consultees has measured the degree of consultant/consultee agreement regarding the consultant's role (Erchul et al., 1992). The interpersonal perspective is a productive direction for future research into interactions between consultant and consultee. Findings thus far have been summarized by Erchul et al. (1992): 1. In dyads in which the consultant agrees with consultee descrip- tions of the child’s behavior, the consultee may be more actively involved in the consultation process. 2. Effective consultants may exercise more interpersonal control in the consultation process (measured by asking questions, offering directives, changing the topic, etc.). 3. Effective consultation may involve a cooperative relationship be- tween consultant and consultee in which the consultee follows the lead of the consultant. 4. Effective consultation may be a relationship in which both con- sultant and consultee agree on each other's roles. 5. Effective consultation involves teamwork between the consultant and consultee. The interpersonal framework for researching the consultation dyads shows promise in addressing questions about the nature of interper- sonal control, directiveness, collaboration, and resistance in school- based consultation. THE CONTENT OF CONSULTATION The model presented in the 1973 paper conceptualized the content of consultation by describing four levels of consultation that incorporate the major roles of psychologists in schools. These four approaches were derived from Caplan’s (1970) framework and adapted for school-based consultation; Level I-Direct Service to the Child, Level II—Indirect Service to the Child, Level III—Direct Service to the Teacher, and Level IV-Service to the School System. Level I was viewed as an important component of the model because it illustrated that effective school-based consultative services could be provided based on data gathered through psychoeducational assess- ment. In contrast, Level II consultation is based on data not gathered by the consultant (e.g., observations by the consultee or other school personnel). This second approach to consultation demonstrated that76 MEYERS consultants could facilitate teachers’ efforts to help children in mean- ingful ways without testing the child. Levels II and IV were distin- guished from the first two approaches by focusing on teachers or the system, rather than on the referred child. HOW THE MODEL HAS EVOLVED DURING THE PAST 20 YEARS The most recent version of this model describes three rather than four types of school-based consultation: student-centered consultation, teacher-centered consultation, and system-centered consultation (Meyers, 1989; Meyers, Brent, Faherty, & Modafferi, 1993; Meyers & Kundert, 1988). In this version, Levels I and II are combined into one approach referred to as student-centered consultation. This change was made because direct and indirect service to the child are often imple- mented together. The revised model selects the most indirect approach to consultation that is appropriate to the case (i.e., teacher-centered or system-centered consultation). More recent applications have clarified how this model can serve as a decision-making framework to assist consultants in determining which category of consultation is most appropriate to a particular referral (Meyers et al., 1993; Meyers et al., 1979; Parsons & Meyers, 1984). The consultant would first determine whether the case could be solved most efficiently through system-centered consultation. If so, then the consultant would use system-centered approaches with the hope that this indirect level of intervention would help solve system-, teacher-, and child-oriented problems. If it is determined that system-centered consultation is not appropriate, the consultant would next determine whether the case could be solved through teacher- centered consultation, and if so, would use teacher-centered approach- es. In these cases, an increase in the knowledge, skills, self-confidence, and objectivity of the teacher is expected to result in more effective education for all children and should also remediate the problems of any referred children. Child-centered consultation would be the consultant’s last resort and would be selected only when system-centered and teacher-centered approaches have been ruled out. The most indirect approaches (i.e., system-centered and teacher-centered) are the priority because they have the greatest potential to reach a maximum number of students, reduce referrals of individual children, and prevent the development of future problems. Some situations require simultaneous use of more than one approach to consultation. For example, the consultant may be required to useCONSULTATION MODEL 77 child-centered approaches while implementing system-centered consul- tation (e.g., serious acting-out behavior occurring in the midst of a systemic problem). Case examples have been used to document the utility of this model (e.g., Meyers, 1989; Meyers & Kundert, 1988; Meyers et al., 1979; Parsons & Meyers, 1984). In addition, there have been efforts to implement this model as a basis for psychological services within a school district. Lennox, Hyman, and Hughes (1988) implemented a consultation service delivery system in an urban school district that was based, in part, on the four levels of consultation from the original model. Another inner-city school district used this consultation framework as a basis for implementing prereferral intervention teams (Valentino, Meyers, Fagnan, & Meyers, 1992). Both of these efforts resulted in an increase in child-centered, teacher-centered, and system-centered con- sultation, with most consultation efforts focused at the child-centered level. The consultation model was important because it helped these teams to modify the instructional environment rather than relying exclusively on interventions that pull the child out of the classroom and assume that the problem lies within the child (e.g., counseling, tutoring, etc.). There is a need for more research on the use of consultation as a framework for implementing school psychological services at all three levels, child-, teacher-, and system-centered, and for developing prereferral intervention teams, Teacher-Centered Consultation Teacher-centered consultation (referred to as consultee-centered consulta- tion by Caplan, 1970) has received a great deal of attention in the literature (e.g., Caplan, 1970; Gutkin & Curtis, 1990; Meyers et al., 1993) but has been subject to few empirical studies. One exception is a study by Gutkin (1981) which found that lack of objectivity was an infrequent focus in school-based consultation. In contrast, lack of knowledge, lack of skill, and lack of self-confidence were more frequent topics during consultation. Yet, most of the prior writing about consultee-centered consultation has focused on lack of objectivity. Gutkin’s research documented the need to develop additional consultation techniques designed for lack of knowledge, lack of skill, and lack of self-confidence. This research does not rule out the potential importance of lack of objectivity as a basis for consultation. For example, two studies have suggested that teacher-centered consultation can be an effective inter- vention when lack of objectivity is the focus of consultation (Meyers, 1975; Meyers, Freidman, & Gaughan, 1975). These investigations dem- onstrated that direct confrontation procedures can be effective in school-78 = MEYERS based consultation when combined with Caplan’s indirect confrontation techniques; direct confrontation expands the strategies available to consultants. (For a detailed discussion of direct versus indirect confron- tation, see Meyers et al., 1993; Meyers et al., 1979; and Parsons & Meyers, 1984.) Although the two studies discussed previously provide some support for the use of direct confrontation strategies to increase teacher objectivity, more research on these topics is needed. System-Centered Consultation System-centered consultation methods have the potential to promote learning and adjustment in all school children, and efforts to research these methods have begun (e.g., see Schmuck, 1990). That research has examined the positive impact of procedures designed to institutionalize the organizational change process (e.g., coordinator of district change process, steering group for school improvement, etc.) as well as the tendency to use institutional interventions such as team teaching or individualized instruction. This area requires additional research fo- cused both on consultation outcomes and on practical methods that can be implemented by practitioners, particularly those internal consultants who hold regular positions in the school. DISCUSSION Preventive Implications of Consultation Consultation was originally conceptualized as a method to prevent the development of psychopathology and to eliminate long waiting lists (Caplan, 1970; Meyers et al., 1979), yet insufficient work has been done to develop this idea or reinforce the application of consultation as a primary prevention technique (Meyers, 1989). Instead, school-based consultation is too often considered a secondary prevention technique implemented during a crisis to improve the current functioning of a particular child using child-centered consultation techniques such as behavior modification (e.g., Meyers, 1989). Although prevention has always been an important part of the rationale for school-based consultation, this goal may be even more important today as social conditions (e.g., substance abuse, child abuse, Jatch-key children, poor nutrition, inadequate prenatal care, teenage , Suicide, AIDS, teen violence, and a range of stress-related illnesses) have dramatic effects on the behavior of school-age children (Meyers & Meyers, 1991). Particularly troublesome have been theCONSULTATION MODEL 79 growing numbers of crack babies, AIDS babies, and AIDS orphans. Effective preventive procedures are required to have a significant long-term impact on these problems (see Meyers, 1989; Meyers & Meyers, 1991). Because consultation is a pragmatic approach to imple- menting preventive intervention in schools, it is even more important today than it was 20 years ago. Early research to determine whether consultation has the preventive effects claimed in theory has found consultation to have the following results: (a) improved professional and problem-solving skills for teach- ers, (b) modified teacher attitudes regarding children’s problems, (c) greater understanding of children’s problems by teachers, (d) generali- zation of consultation effects to other children in the same classroom, (e) reduced referral rates, and (f) gains in long-term academic performance (e.g., see Curtis & Meyers, 1988; Gutkin & Curtis, 1990). More research on the preventive effects of consultation is needed (Meyers, 1989; Meyers et al., 1993). This research should evaluate the effectiveness of consultation in preventing some of the negative outcomes associated with such social problems as AIDS, the death of school children’s parents, substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, and child abuse. Consultation Problem-Solving Stages Although the 1973 article focused on the process and content of consultation, it omitted the stages of consultation. The following stages were defined later: contract negotiation and entry, problem identifica- tion, problem definition, consultation intervention, and assessment of impact (Meyers et al., 1979; Parsons & Meyers, 1984). It is important to conceptualize the problem-solving stages used in consultation because success or failure is often due to whether each stage of consultation has been implemented effectively (e.g., see research by Bergan & Tombari, 1976, illustrating the importance of the Problem Identification stage). When consultation appears to be ineffective, it can be helpful to examine each stage to determine whether its unsuccessful completion may help to account for the unsuccessful consultation. This information can be used by the consultant to develop alternative approaches that can lead to more effective consultation (Parsons & Meyers, 1984). CONCLUSIONS The 1973 model is applicable to any consultant, regardless of theoretical framework. Since that time, research on school-based consultation has increased dramatically. The majority of this research has been based on80 MEYERS behavioral theory, with some recent research focused on cognitive- behavioral and systemic models (e.g., see Gresham & Kendell, 1987). Less research has been based on psychodynamic theory. There is a need to increase research on consultation using alternative methods that are appropriate for psychodynamic as well as behavioral, cognitive- behavioral, and systemic consultation approaches (e.g., qualitative research and small-N methodologies). It is a mistake for the field of consultation to be dominated by particular theoretical orientations (e.g., behavioral theory) or particular approaches to research methodology (e.g., large-N experimental designs). Instead, a range of theories and research methodologies are needed to maximize the potential to develop new information that will benefit the field of school-based consultation. Although there has been an increase in research focused on consul- tation during the past 20 years, many projects have used analog approaches rather than investigating actual consultation relationships. Moreover, most of the research on actual consultation relationships has studied consultation provided by graduate students rather than school practitioners. There is a need for more research that investigates efforts by school practitioners to implement consultation; research into the outcome of consultation and the efficacy of particular consultation strategies is especially needed. Through such efforts, the effects of consultation on the remediation of individual referral problems and on. the prevention of future problems will be better understood. REFERENCES Bergan, J. R., & Tombari, M. L. (1976). Consultant skill and efficiency and the implemen- tation and outcomes of consultation, Journal of School Psychology, 14, 3-13. Caplan, G. (1970). The theory and practice of mental health consultation. New York: Basic. Curtis, M. J., & Meyers, J. (1988). Consultation: A foundation for alternative services in the schools. InJ. L, Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 35-48). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Erchul, W. P. (1987). A relational communication analysis of control in school consulta- tion. Professional School Psychology, 2, 113-124. Exchul, W. P., Hughes, J. N., Meyers, J., Hickman, J. A., & Braden, J. P. (1992). Dyadic agreement concerning the consultation process and its relationship to outcome. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3, 119-132. Gresham, F. M., & Kendell, G. K. (1987). School consultation research: Methodological critique and future research directions. School Psychology Review, 16, 306-316. Gutkin, T. B. (1981). Relative frequency of consultee lack of knowledge, skill, confidence, and objectivity in school settings. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 57-61. Gutkin, T. B., & Curtis, M. J. (1990). School-based consultation: Theory, techniques, and research. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (pp. 577-611). New York: Wiley.CONSULTATION MODEL 81 Lennox, N., Hyman, I. A., & Hughes, C. A. (1988). Institutionalization of a consultation- based service delivery system. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 71-89). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Meyers, J. (1973). A consultation model for school psychological services. Journal of School Psychology, 11, 5-15. Meyers, J. (1975). Consultee-centered consultation with a teacher as a technique in behavior management. American Journal of Community Psychology, 3, 111-121. Meyers, J. (1989). The practice of psychology in the schools for the primary prevention of learning and adjustment problems in children: A perspective from the field of education. In L. A. Bond & B. E. Compas (Eds.), Primary prevention and promotion in the schools (pp. 391-422). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Meyers, J., Brent, D., Faherty, E., & Modafferi, C. (1993). Caplan's contributions to the Practice of psychology in schools. In W. P. Erchul (Ed.), Consultation in community, school, and organizational practice: Gerald Caplan’s contributions to professional psychology (pp. 99-122). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Meyers, J., Freidman, M. P., & Gaughan, E. J., Jr. (1975). The effects of consultee-centered consultation on teacher behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 12, 288-295. Meyers, J., & Kundert, D. (1988). Implementing process assessment. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 173-197). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Meyers, J., & Meyers, B. (1991). Strategies for working with teachers to promote health and mental health in the schools, In S. W. Pflaum (Ed.), Health education: Health educators and teacher educators collaborate (pp. 98-130). Albany, NY: New York State Education Department. ‘Meyers, J., Parsons, R. D., & Martin, R. P. (1979). Mental health consultation in the schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Parsons, R. D., & Meyers, J. (1984). Developing consultation skills. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, Schmuck, R. A. (1990). Organization development in schools: Contemporary concepts and practices. In T. B. Gutkin & C., R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 899-919), New York: Wiley. Valentino, C., Meyers, B., Fagnan, M., & Meyers, J. (1992). Pupil personnel committees: A ‘model of prereferral intervention in urban schools, Paper presented at the meeting of the New York Association of Schoo! Psychologists, Bolton Landing, NY.Copyright © 2002 EBSCO Publishing