This pilot study examined whether refusal assertion as defined by a proven drug prevention program was associated with adolescent perceptions of effectiveness by comparing two sets of coded responses to adolescent videotaped refusal role-plays (N = 63). The original set of codes was defined by programmatic standards of refusal assertion and the second by a group of high school interns. Consistency with programming criteria was found for interns' ratings of several indicators of verbal and non-verbal assertiveness. However, a strategy previously defined by the program as effective was perceived as ineffective by adolescents while another deemed ineffective and problematic by intervention developers was viewed as effective. Interns endorsed presenting detailed and reasonable arguments as an effective refusal strategy while short, simple statements were deemed ineffective. This study suggests the importance of including adolescent perspectives in the design, delivery, and evaluation of drug prevention strategies.