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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 810-816 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 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
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver