Say-Do Correspondence describes a type of behavior in which there is a correspondence between what a person says "he/she will do and what he/she actually does, and viceversa. In the literature, there are some types of procedures to train correspondence behavior. These procedures have important conceptual and practical implications. This paper describes the different procedures in the literature under the umbrella of the Say-Do and Do-Say Correspondences, differentiating those which imply to say in an affirmative way (I´ll do ...) and negative (I will not do ...). This procedures are: a )differential reinforcement of say-do correspondence; b)differential reinforcement of show (nonvocal say)-do correspondence; c)reinforcement of correspondence with negative (response cost) for the lack of correspondence; d)reinforcement set-up upon report; e)immediate reinforcement of intermediate (prerequisite) behavior; f) reinforcement set-up upon intermediate behavior; g) differential reinforcement of do-say correspondence; h) differential reinforcement of say-do-say correspondence; i) differential reinforcement of say-do-description correspondence and j)some of them described before using the verbalization in an negative way. Common properties among all the Say-Do procedures appearing in the literature are described specifying conceptual-methodological problems. The main common property among the correspondence training procedures is that a subject says something and only is reinforced if he/she do what he or she said (say-do), or the reinforcement is delivered only if the subject says what he or she did. A relevant problem is the variability between results coming from studies. Some of the variables to give an account of the variability found are: no explicit differences between procedures, differences in initial repertories of subjects, and the application of reinforcement at different points of the say-do correspondence chain. The applied goals of these procedures are described and discussed too. Some of them are to promote a wide variety of desirable behaviors in young children, adolescents and retarded children and adults. These behaviors are, for example, toy play, in seat, on task good posture, hand raising social initiations, completion of academic tasks. Other applied goals are to reduce undesirable behavior inc1uding thumb sucking, out of seat or other disruptive behaviors.Los procedimientos conocidos bajo la etiqueta de Correspondencia Decir-Hacer tienen como objetivo el establecimiento de una relación ajustada entre lo que un sujeto "dice que va a hacer" y "lo que posteriormente hace", y/o viceversa. El estudio de esta correspondencia se sitúa tanto en un nivel conceptual como aplicado. El primero trata de estudiar las variables que determinan tanto el establecimiento de la correspondencia como su ruptura o la dificultad para su establecimiento. El aspecto aplicado versaría sobre el uso de este procedimiento como estrategia o herramienta para conseguir reducir o incrementar la fuerza (u otro parámetro) de una conducta por razones adaptativas. En este trabajo se describen los diferentes procedimientos aparecidos en la literatura para desarrollar tal correspondencia, tanto los que utilizan una secuencia Decir-Hacer como Hacer-Decir, incluyendo los que emplean el "decir" de forma afirmativa ("vaya hacer...") y también negativa ("No haré..."). Se comentan los elementos comunes entre ellos en cuanto a variables implicadas en la adquisición o el desarrollo de la correspondencia y se especifican algunos de los problemas conceptuales y metodológicos más relevantes y aún pendientes de valoración así como el uso aplicado de los procedimientos decir-hacer a comportamientos en contextos tanto clínicos, como educativos, familiares y sociales.