The language employed did not obfuscate the points the authors were making and generally assisted in ensuring that their argument was lucid and efficient. This is an important feature because very often writers will produce work where the reader is sentenced to time reading the work, not in this case. More substantively, however the thesis was well supported by the argument presented. While, I concur with most of the positions advanced there are some elements that seem discordant and required further elaboration by the authors. In particular, the section on the limitation of CBM was not thoroughly balanced. It appeared as though the authors were attempting to place limited scrutiny on the weaknesses rather than give the complete picture. An additional concern is the actual transition from clinical practice by a trained professional to the use of the techniques by those who are uninitiated in the specific discipline. The authors were not convincing in their argument as to the veracity and simplicity of this transition process. It is possible that the process is more convoluted and fraught...

The absence of CBM use could not simply be the result of an "oversight."
Overall, the article is a very useful introduction to the possibilities of CBM usage for persons with learning disabilities. There is another option; this reality is made very clear by the authors. However, the strength of the option is yet to be determined and methods for practical implementation are required to transform theory into practice. The article makes for excellent reading as it gives the reader something to think about without being overly ideological. The strength of the work is that it brings together multiple thoughts and minds in one place.

Reference

Mayer, M., Lochman, J., & Van Acker, R. (2005). Introduction to the Special Issue:

Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions with Students with EBD. Behavioral Disorders,

30(3): 197-212. Retrieved February 7, 2011, from ProQuest Psychology Journals.

(Document ID: 938654351).