Rollins, Angela L.McGrew, John H.Kukla, MarinaMcGuire, Alan B.Flanagan, Mindy E.Hunt, Marcia G.Leslie, Doug L.Collins, Linda A.Wright-Berryman, Jennifer L.Hicks, Lia J.Salyers, Michelle P.2016-09-292016-09-292016-03Rollins, A. L., McGrew, J. H., Kukla, M., McGuire, A. B., Flanagan, M. E., Hunt, M. G., … Salyers, M. P. (2015). Comparison of Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Assessment Methods: Reliability and Validity. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0641-1https://hdl.handle.net/1805/11047Assertive 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.enPublisher PolicyFidelityquality measurementimplementationArticle