In this article, the author comments on the article by Sylvia Rodger and Alysha Vishram appearing in this issue, titled "Mastering Social and Organizational Goals: Strategy Use by Two Children with Asperger Syndrome during Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance." In the article, the authors explore the use of cognitive strategies, specifically domain-specific strategies, to support skill acquisition by two young people with Asperger Syndrome. The author thinks the article represents an interesting twist on the concept of "relevance to practice." Most assuredly, the research in the article can be seen as having relevance to practice in the typical way, i.e., the findings from this research can be of use in the clinic: the intervention study actually occurred in a clinic and the protocol utilized has been described in the literature. Further, the strategies used and how they were derived are well described. Thus, as the authors themselves suggest, therapists can use the approach studied and the strategies identified in their work with children with Asperger Syndrome to address problems that are typical for these children. The only "real world" barrier to bring these findings into practice is that the therapist may not be familiar with the Cognitive Orientation to (daily) Occupational Performance (CO-OP) approach. Thus he/she would first need to seek out additional information or training to be able to implement this approach. A larger barrier to bringing the findings from this study into practice is the "research" barrier, i.e., the barrier presented by the research design. This is a very small N, nonrandom allocation study and therefore, as the authors point out, the findings should not be generalized. Rather, the study must be seen more as a proof of principle (i.e., it can work) than a demonstration of effectiveness (i.e., it does work). The author finds the article by Rodger and Vishram an excellent example of how research and practice can serve each other to achieve relevance. It demonstrates the necessary nature of the research-practice relationship for evidence to enter practice; it demonstrates that the necessary research-practice relationship is not linear and not unidirectional, but, for relevance, it is a partnership where each drives the other, i.e., where practice drives research, research drives practice, and so on. The article, with its discussion of CO-OP beyond children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) and beyond motor-based performance problems, demonstrates that for relevance it is incumbent upon researchers and practitioners to work in partnership.