In recent years, several investigators have examined trends in the antecedent research literature through discussion of key conceptual models considered to guide this research (Conroy & Stichter, 2003; Smith & Iwata, 1997; Smith, Iwata, & Michael, 2000) as well as related trends in measurement (Mahon, Shores, & Buske, 1999). Despite varied points of inquiry, a reoccur-ring theme identified by various investigators reflects a need for a consistent conceptual frame-work as a basis for this line of research. This apparent lack of conceptual and methodological direction has resulted in several issues related to measurement within natural settings and therefore, may also be contributing to the paucity of this type of research across student populations, specifically children and youth with emotional behavior disorders (EBD) (Stichter, Clarke, & Dunlap, in press). There remains little consensus on how to define, measure, and interpret the impact of antecedents within natural contexts that typically afford less control and create increased variability. These inconsistencies often result in research quagmires that fail to validate the construct of an antecedent event as the intervention responsible for change in the target behavior. Simply put, researchers often set out to examine the relationship between antecedent events and subsequent behaviors; however, by changing the antecedent, they may inadvertently change the discriminative stimulus, the maintaining consequence, or both. The purpose of this article is two-fold: (a) to examine the measurement issues that plague current antecedent research, and (b) to further explore the research methodologies that may with systematic application serve to remedy these measurement issues.