Kratochwill, Bergan, Sheridan, and Elliott (this issue) raise a number of points of disagreement with two previous critiques of the behavioral consultation literature (Noell & Witt, 1996; Witt, Gresham, & Noell, 1996b). The purpose of this article is to clarify the role of differing epistemologies in creating the current controversy and to reiterate the substantial areas of agreement expressed across the several papers contributing to this discussion. The current controversy derives in part from differing epistemological standards applied to verbal reports about behavior by consultees. The use of differing definitions of behavioral consultation, broad theoretical versus specific operational, has also contributed to the current controversy. The numerous areas of agreement include the need for effective procedures to deliver consultation services in schools, the emphasis on implementing empirically derived interventions, and the need for additional data regarding procedures to obtain treatment implementation.