Many early intervention programs are attempting to shift from traditional models in which decisions are made primarily by professional staff to family-centered models that emphasize collaboration with parents. This article presents data on parent-professional relationships that emerged from a naturalistic study of Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) development in three early intervention programs. Parents and staff emphasized the importance and benefits of personal relationships. However, staff also reported significant concerns, especially doubts about whether all parents have the necessary skills for full participation. These concerns appeared to make it difficult for staff to support parental decision making fully. Relationship quality and control issues emerged as significant factors in parent-staff interactions. A model is presented that outlines the interplay between these factors; it can be used to monitor program progress in implementing family-centered approaches.Early intervention services are in transition. Many programs are moving from traditional, child-oriented models of intervention to family-centered models that stress supporting and strengthening families. The Education of the Handicapped Act (1986) requires Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) as part of birth-to-3 services, and staff are expected to work closely with parents in developing these plans. Dunst and Trivette (1989) have called the IFSP "the most significant requirement of the Part H discretionary program" (p.

The need for naturalistic research in special education is well-documented. The author discusses the substantive and methodological contributions which several disciplines can make to naturalistic research, and raises definitional issues. Historical roots and the current status of naturalistic research are discussed. Ecological theory, specifically behavior-setting theory, is described, as well as its implications for research. An ecological method called the chronolog is outlined, and selected studies using ecological methods are described in terms of their implications for special education research.The purpose of this paper is to describe theory and methods from ecological psychology and to suggest their application in special education research. The immediate objective is to increase the quantity and quality of naturalistic research on problems relating to exceptional children and the ecosystems surrounding them, which should ultimately lead to improved theory building and more effective program planning in special education. THE NEED FOR NATURALISTIC RESEARCHThe need for more ecological or naturalistic research on educational and developmental problems is well-documented. The problem is at least twofold. In the first place, there is no basic descriptive corpus of incidence and frequency of data on human behavior such as the natural sciences have on their phenomena. Barker (1968) notes, for example, that chemists can report that potassium (K) ranks seventh in order of abundance of elements, and constitutes about 2.59% of the igneous rocks of the earth's crust, but that the behavioral sciences have no such comparable data on phenomena such as playing, laughing, talking, conflict, etc. In the second place, although a sense of the complexity of behavior in the natural habitat is emerging, little information is available concerning how the variables interrelate in that natural habitat. Willems (1973) has been particularly eloquent with examples in this regard. Recent models of human development are also beginning to address more systematically such natural-habitat givens as complexity and interdependence; examples include a systems model

The use of naturalistic narrative data is increasing but without increasing methodological rigor. Assumptions underlying such methods prohibit an investigator from interrupting the natural habitat by use of such standard laboratory procedures as equal observation intervals for all subjects, equal behavior units, or other artificial equalization of the behavioral data stream. Data analytic techniques commonly used in standard laboratory research present problems in the analysis of naturalistic data of this type inasmuch as most assume equal observation intervals, equal unit intervals, or some other fundamental character of equality. These problems are particularly acute with respect to estimates of analyst and observer agreement. This paper addresses these problems and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of several possible solutions.The collection and analysis of naturalistic observational data present some unique problems in determining observer and coder reliability and agreement. A number of these problems, especially as they relate to category observation schedules, have been extensively reviewed have also addressed these problems as they relate to ethnographic research. However, the particular problems surrounding determination of observer and analyst agreement in narrative and observational records have not been well explored. Furthermore, the use of naturalistic narrative data is increasing without concomitant increase in methodological rigor.The purposes of this paper are (a) to describe problems that researchers encounter when working in this area, (b) to identify various solutions that have been used, (c) to report results of some recent studies of observer and analyst agreement, (d) to propose alternate strategies for calculating analyst agreement, and (e) to compare and contrast this strategy with others previously used. The focus of this paper is on interobserver and interanalyst agreement. The issues raised and the methods discussed, however, would be equally applicable to intraobserver and intraanalyst agreement. PROBLEMS IN DETERMINING OBSERVER AND ANALYST AGREEMENTThe methodology associated with narrative observation provides a framework for considering the unique difficulties encountered with this type of observation in estimating Requests for reprints should be sent to M. M. Scott,