This study examined the relationship between treatment integrity and acceptability for reading interventions across two consultation models, intensive data-based academic intervention (IDAI) and traditional data-based academic intervention (TDAI). Participants included 83 firstthrough fourth-grade students who met research criteria for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and evidenced academic difficulties and their general and/or special education teachers. Reading interventions were developed through individualized, data-driven consultation (IDAI) or generic, menu-based consultative services (TDAI). Results suggested a moderate, positive relationship between treatment integrity and acceptability for both consultation groups, although the relationship was statistically significant for the IDAI group only. Furthermore, although there was a significant difference between consultation groups on treatment integrity, differences between groups on treatment acceptability were not statistically significant. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.