Program fidelity in assertive community treatment: Development and use of a measure.

Teague, Gregory B.; Bond, Gary R.; Drake, Robert E.

doi:10.1037/h0080331

Cited by 449 publications

(375 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

352

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mean item scores of 4 and above are considered characteristic of established ACT teams. The DACTS has excellent interrater reliability (11) and can differentiate between ACT and other types of intensive case management (7). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Phone-Based and On-Site Assessment of Fidelity for Assertive Community Treatment in Indiana

McGrew¹

2011

Psychiatric Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study investigated the reliability, validity, and role of rater expertise in phone-administered fidelity assessment instrument based on the Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale (DACTS). Methods An experienced rater paired with a research assistant without fidelity assessment experience or a consultant familiar with the treatment site conducted phone based assessments of 23 teams providing assertive community treatment in Indiana. Using the DACTS, consultants conducted on-site evaluations of the programs. Results The pairs of phone raters revealed high levels of consistency [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=.92] and consensus (mean absolute difference of .07). Phone and on-site assessment showed strong agreement (ICC=.87) and consensus (mean absolute difference of .07) and agreed within .1 scale point, or 2% of the scoring range, for 83% of sites and within .15 scale point for 91% of sites. Results were unaffected by the expertise level of the rater. Conclusions Phone based assessment could help agencies monitor faithful implementation of evidence-based practices.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Phone-Based and On-Site Assessment of Fidelity for Assertive Community Treatment in Indiana

McGrew¹

2011

Psychiatric Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fidelity was assessed with six criteria from the Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale (DACTS) (9): in vivo service delivery, 1:10 staff-to-client ratio, 1:100 psychiatrist-to-client ratio, 24-hour availability for crises, time-unlimited services, and substance abuse counselor on staff. Programs were required to meet at least four of the six DACTS criteria along with the three screening criteria to qualify for study inclusion as a FACT program.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Probation in Forensic Assertive Community Treatment

Lamberti¹,

Deem²,

Weisman³

et al. 2011

Psychiatric Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Forensic assertive community treatment (FACT) is an adaptation of the assertive community treatment model designed to prevent criminal recidivism through criminal justice collaborations. A national survey was conducted to examine FACT collaborations with probation departments. Methods Members of the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors were surveyed to identify FACT programs. Programs reporting collaborations with probation departments were contacted to provide details. Results Fifty-six percent of FACT programs (15 of 27) reported collaborating with probation departments. Probation officers were assigned an average of 29±16 hours weekly, and 80% of programs (12 of 15) reported a favorable impact of collaboration on risk of patient rearrest. Only two programs reported using standard tools to formally assess recidivism risk. The most common barrier to collaboration was differences in philosophy between FACT team clinicians and probation officers. Conclusions FACT collaborations involving probation departments are common and are viewed by most program leaders as helpful in reducing criminal recidivism.

show abstract

“…However, in ACT, compared to more recent evidence-based models, the development of fidelity criteria (Teague et al, 1998) and the program manual (Allness & Knoedler, 1998) occurred much later (1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998) than the original efficacy study (Stein & Test, 1980). The first scale developed to assess fidelity to ACT principles, in fact, followed the expert opinion method for fidelity development approach (2) above: reviewing published descriptions of the model, constructing a list of proposed critical ingredients, then having ACT experts (academics and practitioners) rate the importance of each ingredient (McGrew et al, 1994).…”

Section: Methods To Develop Fidelity Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first scale developed to assess fidelity to ACT principles, in fact, followed the expert opinion method for fidelity development approach (2) above: reviewing published descriptions of the model, constructing a list of proposed critical ingredients, then having ACT experts (academics and practitioners) rate the importance of each ingredient (McGrew et al, 1994). Subsequent ACT fidelity studies have built on these criteria, adjusting for specific settings and/or populations (Johnsen et al, 1999;Teague et al, 1995) and revising on the basis of new literature and measurement practicality (Teague et al, 1998). This general method has also been used to identify fidelity criteria for consumer-operated programs (Holter, Mowbray, Bellamy, & MacFarlane, in press).…”

Section: Methods To Develop Fidelity Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…note that the development of fidelity measures is hampered by the lack of well-defined models and that the identification of fidelity criteria and development of fidelity scales for ACT were so successful because this model was well-developed and its operations were specified in detail. Development of fidelity criteria is more difficult with complex interventions that depend on practitioner decision-making, using clinical expertise, on individualizing services to meet the multiple needs and preferences of consumers, or on behaviors of multiple practitioners, structural variables, or service coordination Teague et al, 1998).…”

Section: Issues In Establishing Fidelity Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fidelity Criteria: Development, Measurement, and Validation

MOWBRAY¹

2003

The American Journal of Evaluation

188

266

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fidelity may be defined as the extent to which delivery of an intervention adheres to the protocol or program model originally developed. Fidelity measurement has increasing significance for evaluation, treatment effectiveness research, and service administration. Yet few published studies using fidelity criteria provide details on the construction of a valid fidelity index. The purpose of this review article is to outline steps in the development, measurement, and validation of fidelity criteria, providing examples from health and education literatures. We further identify important issues in conducting each step. Finally, we raise questions about the dynamic nature of fidelity criteria, appropriate validation and statistical analysis methods, the inclusion of structure and process criteria in fidelity assessment, and the role of program theory in deciding on the balance between adaptation versus exact replication of model programs. Further attention to the use and refinement of fidelity criteria is important to evaluation practice.

show abstract

Program fidelity in assertive community treatment: Development and use of a measure.

Cited by 449 publications

References 35 publications

A Comparison of Phone-Based and On-Site Assessment of Fidelity for Assertive Community Treatment in Indiana

A Comparison of Phone-Based and On-Site Assessment of Fidelity for Assertive Community Treatment in Indiana

The Role of Probation in Forensic Assertive Community Treatment

Fidelity Criteria: Development, Measurement, and Validation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About