Comparison of Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Assessment Methods: Reliability and Validity

Angela L. Rollins; John H. McGrew; Marina Kukla; Alan B. McGuire; Mindy E. Flanagan; Marcia G. Hunt; Doug L. Leslie; Linda A. Collins; Jennifer L. Wright-Berryman; Lia J. Hicks; Michelle P. Salyers

doi:10.1007/s10488-015-0641-1

Comparison of Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Assessment Methods: Reliability and Validity

Angela L. Rollins
, John H. McGrew
, Marina Kukla
, Alan B. McGuire
, Mindy E. Flanagan
, Marcia G. Hunt
, Doug L. Leslie
, Linda A. Collins
, Jennifer L. Wright-Berryman
, Lia J. Hicks
, Michelle P. Salyers

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

15 Scopus citations

Abstract

Assertive community treatment is known for improving consumer outcomes, but is difficult to implement. On-site fidelity measurement can help ensure model adherence, but is costly in large systems. This study compared reliability and validity of three methods of fidelity assessment (on-site, phone-administered, and expert-scored self-report) using a stratified random sample of 32 mental health intensive case management teams from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Overall, phone, and to a lesser extent, expert-scored self-report fidelity assessments compared favorably to on-site methods in inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity. If used appropriately, these alternative protocols hold promise in monitoring large-scale program fidelity with limited resources.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	157-167
Number of pages	11
Journal	Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
Volume	43
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0641-1
State	Published - Mar 1 2016

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

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

Access to Document

10.1007/s10488-015-0641-1

Cite this

Rollins, A. L., McGrew, J. H., Kukla, M., McGuire, A. B., Flanagan, M. E., Hunt, M. G., Leslie, D. L., Collins, L. A., Wright-Berryman, J. L., Hicks, L. J., & Salyers, M. P. (2016). Comparison of Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Assessment Methods: Reliability and Validity. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43(2), 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0641-1

@article{df1f42fc48654f24be17ad9cc991b7e1,

title = "Comparison of Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Assessment Methods: Reliability and Validity",

abstract = "Assertive community treatment is known for improving consumer outcomes, but is difficult to implement. On-site fidelity measurement can help ensure model adherence, but is costly in large systems. This study compared reliability and validity of three methods of fidelity assessment (on-site, phone-administered, and expert-scored self-report) using a stratified random sample of 32 mental health intensive case management teams from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Overall, phone, and to a lesser extent, expert-scored self-report fidelity assessments compared favorably to on-site methods in inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity. If used appropriately, these alternative protocols hold promise in monitoring large-scale program fidelity with limited resources.",

author = "Rollins, \{Angela L.\} and McGrew, \{John H.\} and Marina Kukla and McGuire, \{Alan B.\} and Flanagan, \{Mindy E.\} and Hunt, \{Marcia G.\} and Leslie, \{Doug L.\} and Collins, \{Linda A.\} and Wright-Berryman, \{Jennifer L.\} and Hicks, \{Lia J.\} and Salyers, \{Michelle P.\}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2015, Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA).",

year = "2016",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1007/s10488-015-0641-1",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "43",

pages = "157--167",

journal = "Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research",

issn = "0894-587X",

publisher = "Springer New York",

number = "2",

}

Rollins, AL, McGrew, JH, Kukla, M, McGuire, AB, Flanagan, ME, Hunt, MG, Leslie, DL, Collins, LA, Wright-Berryman, JL, Hicks, LJ & Salyers, MP 2016, 'Comparison of Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Assessment Methods: Reliability and Validity', Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0641-1

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Assessment Methods

T2 - Reliability and Validity

AU - Rollins, Angela L.

AU - McGrew, John H.

AU - Kukla, Marina

AU - McGuire, Alan B.

AU - Flanagan, Mindy E.

AU - Hunt, Marcia G.

AU - Leslie, Doug L.

AU - Collins, Linda A.

AU - Wright-Berryman, Jennifer L.

AU - Hicks, Lia J.

AU - Salyers, Michelle P.

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Assertive community treatment is known for improving consumer outcomes, but is difficult to implement. On-site fidelity measurement can help ensure model adherence, but is costly in large systems. This study compared reliability and validity of three methods of fidelity assessment (on-site, phone-administered, and expert-scored self-report) using a stratified random sample of 32 mental health intensive case management teams from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Overall, phone, and to a lesser extent, expert-scored self-report fidelity assessments compared favorably to on-site methods in inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity. If used appropriately, these alternative protocols hold promise in monitoring large-scale program fidelity with limited resources.

AB - Assertive community treatment is known for improving consumer outcomes, but is difficult to implement. On-site fidelity measurement can help ensure model adherence, but is costly in large systems. This study compared reliability and validity of three methods of fidelity assessment (on-site, phone-administered, and expert-scored self-report) using a stratified random sample of 32 mental health intensive case management teams from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Overall, phone, and to a lesser extent, expert-scored self-report fidelity assessments compared favorably to on-site methods in inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity. If used appropriately, these alternative protocols hold promise in monitoring large-scale program fidelity with limited resources.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84957951727

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84957951727#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1007/s10488-015-0641-1

DO - 10.1007/s10488-015-0641-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 25721146

AN - SCOPUS:84957951727

SN - 0894-587X

VL - 43

SP - 157

EP - 167

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

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

IS - 2

ER -

Comparison of Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Assessment Methods: Reliability and Validity

Abstract

UN SDGs

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this