Citation

Krach SK, McCreery MP, Monk MM, Bagneris JR. J. Sch. Health 2022; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, American School Health Association, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/josh.13286

PMID

36401562

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The current study identified and compared different treatment fidelity reporting methods.

METHOD: This paper includes 2 studies. In Study 1, the researchers compared and contrasted 3 sources of fidelity obtained in a study previously published by the authors; whereas, Study 2 did the same using a structured review of the literature.

RESULTS: Fidelity reporting methods included: self-reports, peer reports, observations, artifact review, and use of standardized procedures. Study 1: a statistically significant difference in fidelity results was identified between methods. Study 2: the most common method of reporting was no reporting (46%) followed by observations (25.6%), peer ratings (25.6%), and self-report (23.1%). When studies reported that fidelity was evaluated, 57% subsequently provided specific fidelity results.

CONCLUSIONS: Given that intervention fidelity is reported differently depending on the method used, then standard guidelines are needed for how this construct should be assessed and reported in practice and research.

Language: en

Keywords

assessment; intervention; fidelity; positive behavioral interventions and supports