McGrew, John H.White, Laura M.Stull, Laura G.Wright-Berryman, Jennifer2025-05-302025-05-302013McGrew JH, White LM, Stull LG, Wright-Berryman J. A comparison of self-reported and phone-administered methods of ACT fidelity assessment: a pilot study in Indiana. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64(3):272-276. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.001252012https://hdl.handle.net/1805/48473Objective: Monitoring fidelity of assertive community treatment (ACT) teams is costly. This study investigated the reliability and validity of a less burdensome approach: self-reported assessment. Methods: Phone-administered and self-reported assessments were compared for 16 ACT teams. Team leaders completed a self-report protocol providing information sufficient to score the Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale (DACTS). Two raters scored the DACTS using only self-reported information. Two additional raters conducted phone interviews with team leaders, verifying the self-reported data, and independently scored the DACTS. Results: DACTS total scores obtained via self-reported assessments were reliable and valid compared with phone-administered assessment on the basis of interrater consistency (intraclass correlation) and consensus (mean rating differences). Phone-administered assessments agreed with self-reported assessments within .25 scale points (out of 5 points) for 15 of 16 teams. Conclusions: A self-report approach could address concerns regarding costs of monitoring as part of a stepped approach to quality assurance.en-USPublisher PolicyMental disordersCommunity mental health servicesPatient care teamArticle