Comparing the Costs and Acceptability of Three Fidelity Assessment Methods for Assertive Community Treatment

Angela L. Rollins, Marina Kukla, Michelle P. Salyers, John H. McGrew, Mindy E. Flanagan, Doug L. Leslie, Marcia G. Hunt, Alan B. McGuire

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Successful implementation of evidence-based practices requires valid, yet practical fidelity monitoring. This study compared the costs and acceptability of three fidelity assessment methods: on-site, phone, and expert-scored self-report. Thirty-two randomly selected VA mental health intensive case management teams completed all fidelity assessments using a standardized scale and provided feedback on each. Personnel and travel costs across the three methods were compared for statistical differences. Both phone and expert-scored self-report methods demonstrated significantly lower costs than on-site assessments, even when excluding travel costs. However, participants preferred on-site assessments. Remote fidelity assessments hold promise in monitoring large scale program fidelity with limited resources.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)810-816
Number of pages7
JournalAdministration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
Volume44
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2017

Fingerprint

Community Mental Health Services
Costs and Cost Analysis
Self Report
Evidence-Based Practice
Case Management
Mental Health

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Phychiatric Mental Health
  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Rollins, Angela L. ; Kukla, Marina ; Salyers, Michelle P. ; McGrew, John H. ; Flanagan, Mindy E. ; Leslie, Doug L. ; Hunt, Marcia G. ; McGuire, Alan B. / Comparing the Costs and Acceptability of Three Fidelity Assessment Methods for Assertive Community Treatment. In: Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2017 ; Vol. 44, No. 5. pp. 810-816.
@article{7a580d96922d41769fa29f9b601aa222,
title = "Comparing the Costs and Acceptability of Three Fidelity Assessment Methods for Assertive Community Treatment",
abstract = "Successful implementation of evidence-based practices requires valid, yet practical fidelity monitoring. This study compared the costs and acceptability of three fidelity assessment methods: on-site, phone, and expert-scored self-report. Thirty-two randomly selected VA mental health intensive case management teams completed all fidelity assessments using a standardized scale and provided feedback on each. Personnel and travel costs across the three methods were compared for statistical differences. Both phone and expert-scored self-report methods demonstrated significantly lower costs than on-site assessments, even when excluding travel costs. However, participants preferred on-site assessments. Remote fidelity assessments hold promise in monitoring large scale program fidelity with limited resources.",
author = "Rollins, {Angela L.} and Marina Kukla and Salyers, {Michelle P.} and McGrew, {John H.} and Flanagan, {Mindy E.} and Leslie, {Doug L.} and Hunt, {Marcia G.} and McGuire, {Alan B.}",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10488-016-0785-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "810--816",
journal = "Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research",
issn = "0894-587X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "5",

}

Comparing the Costs and Acceptability of Three Fidelity Assessment Methods for Assertive Community Treatment. / Rollins, Angela L.; Kukla, Marina; Salyers, Michelle P.; McGrew, John H.; Flanagan, Mindy E.; Leslie, Doug L.; Hunt, Marcia G.; McGuire, Alan B.

In: Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, Vol. 44, No. 5, 01.09.2017, p. 810-816.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing the Costs and Acceptability of Three Fidelity Assessment Methods for Assertive Community Treatment

AU - Rollins, Angela L.

AU - Kukla, Marina

AU - Salyers, Michelle P.

AU - McGrew, John H.

AU - Flanagan, Mindy E.

AU - Leslie, Doug L.

AU - Hunt, Marcia G.

AU - McGuire, Alan B.

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Successful implementation of evidence-based practices requires valid, yet practical fidelity monitoring. This study compared the costs and acceptability of three fidelity assessment methods: on-site, phone, and expert-scored self-report. Thirty-two randomly selected VA mental health intensive case management teams completed all fidelity assessments using a standardized scale and provided feedback on each. Personnel and travel costs across the three methods were compared for statistical differences. Both phone and expert-scored self-report methods demonstrated significantly lower costs than on-site assessments, even when excluding travel costs. However, participants preferred on-site assessments. Remote fidelity assessments hold promise in monitoring large scale program fidelity with limited resources.

AB - Successful implementation of evidence-based practices requires valid, yet practical fidelity monitoring. This study compared the costs and acceptability of three fidelity assessment methods: on-site, phone, and expert-scored self-report. Thirty-two randomly selected VA mental health intensive case management teams completed all fidelity assessments using a standardized scale and provided feedback on each. Personnel and travel costs across the three methods were compared for statistical differences. Both phone and expert-scored self-report methods demonstrated significantly lower costs than on-site assessments, even when excluding travel costs. However, participants preferred on-site assessments. Remote fidelity assessments hold promise in monitoring large scale program fidelity with limited resources.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008186371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008186371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10488-016-0785-7

DO - 10.1007/s10488-016-0785-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 28054197

AN - SCOPUS:85008186371

VL - 44

SP - 810

EP - 816

JO - Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research

JF - Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research

SN - 0894-587X

IS - 5

ER -