OBJECTIVE: 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.
OBJECTIVE: 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.
Authors: S D Phillips; B J Burns; E R Edgar; K T Mueser; K W Linkins; R A Rosenheck; R E Drake; E C McDonel Herr Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Gregory J McHugo; Robert E Drake; Rob Whitley; Gary R Bond; Kikuko Campbell; Charles A Rapp; Howard H Goldman; Wilma J Lutz; Molly T Finnerty Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Anthony D Mancini; Lorna L Moser; Rob Whitley; Gregory J McHugo; Gary R Bond; Molly T Finnerty; Barbara J Burns Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Paul J Margolies; Jennifer L Humensky; I-Chin Chiang; Nancy H Covell; Karen Broadway-Wilson; Raymond Gregory; Thomas C Jewell; Gary Scannevin; Stephen Baker; Lisa B Dixon Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Jennifer E Johnson; Shannon Wiltsey-Stirman; Alla Sikorskii; Ted Miller; Amanda King; Jennifer L Blume; Xuan Pham; Tiffany A Moore Simas; Ellen Poleshuck; Rebecca Weinberg; Caron Zlotnick Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 7.327