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

2 Scopus citations

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

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

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

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparing the Costs and Acceptability of Three Fidelity Assessment Methods for Assertive Community Treatment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this