@article{erchul_dupaul_grissom_junod_jitendra_mannella_tresco_flammer-rivera_volpe_2007, title={Relationships among relational communication processes and consultation outcomes for students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder}, volume={36}, number={1}, journal={School Psychology Review}, author={Erchul, W. P. and DuPaul, G. J. and Grissom, P. F. and Junod, R. E. V. and Jitendra, A. K. and Mannella, M. C. and Tresco, K. E. and Flammer-Rivera, L. M. and Volpe, R. J.}, year={2007}, pages={111–129} }
 @article{erchul_2003, title={Communication and interpersonal processes in consultation: Guest editor's comments}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1047-4412"]}, DOI={10.1207/s1532768xjepc1402_1}, abstractNote={Stripped to its essence, educational and psychological consultation consists of a problem-solving, interpersonal relationship that develops through periodic face-to-face contacts between consultant and consultee. Although relational and communicational aspects of consultation have been systematically explored previously in the Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation (JEPC; e.g., Erchul, 1991; Safran, 1991) and other publications, it is widely acknowledged that relatively little is known about these crucial aspects of consultative practice. This special issue was therefore developed as one attempt to address this knowledge gap. This issue’s genesis perhaps reflects an effective use of contemporary technology. Specifically, in April 2002, an open call for manuscript proposals was posted to various professional groups’ listservs. Potential contributors were informed that articles to be published in the issue collectively would examine various topics concerning face-to-face communication and relational elements in human services consultation. The response to the call was very positive, yielding 15 proposal submissions. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION, 14(2), 105–107 Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION}, author={Erchul, WP}, year={2003}, pages={105–107} }
 @article{grissom_erchul_sheridan_2003, title={Relationships among relational communication processes and perceptions of outcomes in conjoint behavioral consultation}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1532-768X"]}, DOI={10.1207/s1532768xjepc1402_4}, abstractNote={Conjoint behavioral consultation (CBC), an extension of behavioral consultation, considers home and school settings when conceptualizing a student's difficulty (Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Bergan, 1996). A relational communication perspective was adopted to examine interpersonal control (i.e., attempts to influence and successfully influence) and its relationship to CBC outcomes. Consultant, teacher, and parent influence was measured in 20 CBC initial interviews using the Family Relational Communication Control Coding System (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987), and outcomes were assessed regarding the acceptability/effectiveness of CBC, consultant effectiveness, and attainment of consultation goals. Results indicated that parental influence is associated with less favorable teacher ratings regarding model acceptability/effectiveness and less favorable parent ratings of goal attainment. Results further suggest that greater importance should be placed on parent behavior with respect to outcomes of CBC.}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION}, author={Grissom, PF and Erchul, WP and Sheridan, SM}, year={2003}, pages={157–180} }
 @article{erchul_sheridan_ryan_grissom_killough_mettler_1999, title={Patterns of relational communication in conjoint behavioral consultation}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1939-1560"]}, DOI={10.1037/h0089001}, abstractNote={Conjoint behavioral consultation (CBC) is a structured model of service delivery that joins parents and teachers in collaborative problem-solving with the assistance of a consul tant-psychologist (Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Bergan, 1996). CBC is carried out through the conduct of problem identifi cation, problem analysis, and treatment evaluation interviews. In this CBC process study, interpersonal relationship patterns occurring within interviews were examined using the Family Relational Communication Control Coding System (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987). Four CBC cases, consisting of 9,696 individual mes sages, were coded from audiotapes and verbatim transcripts. Scores on the variables “domineeringness” and “dominance” were calculated for each participant in order to assess patterns of relational control. Results suggested that consultants and consultees were gener ally consistent with each other in their levels of domineeringness and dominance. Consul tants received slightly higher scores than consultees in their attempts to structure the CBC interactions (domineeringness), and consultees received slightly higher scores than consul tants with respect to infl uence (dominance). 122 W. ERCHUL ET AL. IN SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY, 14 (1999) RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION IN CONJOINT BEHAVIORAL CONSULTATION 123 Conjoint behavioral consultation (CBC) is a structured model of service delivery that joins parents and teachers in collaborative problem-solving with the assis tance of a consultant-psychologist. In this model, the relationship between home and school is viewed as a cooperative and interactive partnership with shared ownership and responsibility for problems and solutions. Among the assumptions of CBC are that parents and teachers will share information, learn from each other, value each other’s input, and incorporate each other’s insights into inter vention plans. As such, collaborative problem-solving between home and school systems is believed to afford the greatest benefi ts (Sheridan & Kratochwill, 1992). CBC is implemented in four stages (problem identifi cation, problem analysis, treatment implementation, treatment evaluation), and is operationalized via a series of behavioral interviews (Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990; Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Bergan, 1996). By involving individuals from various systems within a child’s life (i.e., home and school), a comprehensive problem defi ni tion is likely; identifying setting events that are contextually or temporally dis tal to target behaviors is also possible. Further, cross-setting intervention strategies are believed to control behavioral side effects and enhance general ization and maintenance of treatment effects. To date, CBC outcome studies conducted have yielded positive results (e.g., Colton & Sheridan, 1998; Gallo way & Sheridan, 1994; Myers, Haskett, & Erchul, 1998; Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Elliott, 1990). Within the school psychology literature there exists a body of research, conducted since the mid-1970s, which has examined the face-to-face communication that occurs during the psychologist/teacher consultation. Although a comprehensive review of this literature is beyond the scope of this article, it is useful to acknowledge the distinction between research that used content coding methodology versus relational coding methodology (Martens, Erchul, & Witt, 1992; Witt, 1990). Content coding systems emphasize individuals’ isolated ver bal behaviors, as well as the literal meanings of exchanged messages (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990). Bergan’s (1977) Consultation Analysis Record (CAR)—with the exception of its message control category—is an exam ple of a content coding system. Representative studies of consultation that have employed the CAR have been conducted by Bergan and Tombari (1975, 1976), Gutkin (1996), and Martens, Lewandowski, and Houk (1989). In contrast, relational coding systems emphasize the connectedness of indi viduals as well as the pragmatic (i.e., control-related) aspects of messages (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990). At least six relational coding systems have been reported in the speech communication literature, each based on Bateson’s (1958) theory of schismogenesis and its associated concepts of complementarity and symmetry (Erchul, 1987). (Defi nitions of these and other terms related to relational communication theory and research may be found in Table 1.) Consultation research studies that have employed relational coding systems are Erchul (1987), Erchul and Chewning (1990), Erchul, Covington, Hughes, and Meyers (1995), Martens et al. (1992), and Witt, Erchul, McKee, Pardue, and Wickstrom (1991). Perhaps the best known of the relational coding systems is Rogers and Farace’s (1975) relational communication control coding system (RCCCS). Within the RCCCS, each message is assigned a three-digit code. The fi rst digit indicates the speaker and the second digit refers to the grammatical form of the message (e.g., assertion or question). The third digit indicates the metacommunicational function that the message serves, relative to the message preceding it (e.g., topic change or answer). After these message codes have been assigned, control codes are specifi ed for each message. Control codes, based on secondand third-digit message code combinations, are either one-up, one-down, or one-across. A oneup code signifi es a bid for dominance and an at tempt to control the relationship. Examples of one-up messages include instruc tions, orders, and topic changes. A one-down code refl ects an acceptance of, or request for, another’s defi nition of the relationship. Examples of one-down mes sages are those offering support or agreement. A one-across code signifi es a message that is not concerned with defi ning control issues or one that seeks to neutralize relational control. An example of a one-across message is an asser tion that continues the theme of the current discussion. Control codes are then analyzed in the context of previous and succeeding messages in order to operationalize complementarity (e.g., one-up, one-down exchanges) and sym metry (e.g., one-up, one-up exchanges) (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987; Rogers & Farace, 1975). In a process-outcome study of behavioral consultation, Erchul (1987) used the RCCCS to examine eight psychologist–teacher dyads. The variables investigated were domineeringness (percentage of Person A’s total messages that are coded as one-up) and dominance (percentage of Person A’s one-up messages that are followed by one-down messages by Person B). These variables derive from relational communication research conducted by Courtright, Millar, and RogersMillar (1979) and Rogers-Millar and Millar (1979). Erchul’s key results were the following: (a) consultants controlled the process across all three con sultation interviews, suggesting that behavioral consultation is characterized by a complementary relationship between consultant and teacher; (b) consultee domineeringness scores correlated –.81 with consultant perceptions of consultee willingness to collect baseline data, suggesting that more domineer ing consultees were viewed by consultants as less willing to participate in a sig nifi cant behavioral consultation activity; and (c) consultant dominance scores correlated .65 with consultee perceptions of consultant effectiveness, suggest ing that more dominant consultants were viewed more favorably by consultees. Although this last fi nding was not statistically signifi cant using a conventional .05 alpha level, a follow-up study by Erchul and Schulte (1990) obtained a corre lation of .65 (p < .05) between variables using a larger sample. 124 W. ERCHUL ET AL. IN SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY, 14 (1999) RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION IN CONJOINT BEHAVIORAL CONSULTATION 125 Table 1. Definitions of Key Terms Used in Relational Communication Theory}, number={2}, journal={SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY}, author={Erchul, WP and Sheridan, SM and Ryan, DA and Grissom, PF and Killough, CE and Mettler, DW}, year={1999}, pages={121–147} }