This is the first article of the Volume 7 "EBP Briefs." The "Briefs" provide explicit guidance in how to approach specific clinical questions and rich models of implementing evidence-based practice as a systematic clinical-care process. "EBP Briefs" first appeared in the winter of 2006, quite soon after the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) formally introduced evidence-based practice (EBP) in a position statement (ASHA, 2005a). This article has taken a step back back from the typical framework of identifying a question on a specific clinical topic and then addressing that question. This article provides a retrospective overview of (a) the construct of EBP, including what it is and what it is not; (b) changes in the field as a result of implementing EBP; and (c) future directions for ensuring that EBP principles are incorporated in a way that results in high-quality clinical care. Five components of engaging in Evidence-Based Practice are discussed in detail. The shift to the second generation of EBP involves assessing the quality of clinical practice when EBP is utilized and determining whether speech-language services have decisive positive impacts on the clients served. Just as the tenets of EBP assert that clinicians need to use the highest form of evidence to guide clinical practice, there must be assurance that using EBP itself is superior to other models of clinical services. Although EBP has intuitive appeal, is there evidence to suggest that it improves clinical practices and, in turn, clinical outcomes? Moving into the second generation of EBP, there are many more questions to be answered and challenges to confront. The research community must also be prepared to conduct the types and quality of research that provides for valid, causal interpretations of treatment outcomes. It must be determined if clinical practices are in fact adhering to the tenets of EBP. Are clinicians attending to the empirical evidence presented in the literature and integrating it into their clinical decisionmaking? If so, does this reduce the heterogeneity of practices that makes clinical practices appear idiosyncratic? The answer to these questions will be critically assessed in Volume 7 of the "EBP Briefs."