Kent made several criticisms of Patterson’s follow-up analyses of a behavioral treatment program for boys with conduct problems. After presenting a number of re-analyses of the data, Kent argued that Patterson’s conclusion that treatment effects persisted during follow-up was unwarranted. Although Ken raised sound questions regarding the design of therapy outcome and follow-up studies, his specific criticisms and re-analyses of Patterson’s data were foound to be highly selective and unconvincing. Further re-analyses are presented to support Patterson’s contention that follow-up effects were indeed found in his original study.