Rollins, Angela L.Kukla, MarinaSalyers, Michelle P.McGrew, John H.Flanagan, Mindy E.Leslie, Doug L.Hunt, Marcia G.2017-09-292017-09-292017-09Rollins, A. L., Kukla, M., Salyers, M. P., McGrew, J. H., Flanagan, M. E., Leslie, D. L., ... & McGuire, A. B. (2017). Comparing the Costs and Acceptability of Three Fidelity Assessment Methods for Assertive Community Treatment. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 44 (5), 810-816. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10488-016-0785-7https://hdl.handle.net/1805/14221Successful 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.enIUPUI Open Access PolicycostfidelityqualityArticle