Cited by 610Health Policy Implementation SciencePsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Major ingredients of fidelity: A review and scientific guide to improving quality of intervention research implementation

Gearing, Robin Edward, El-Bassel, Nabila, Ghesquiere, Angela, Baldwin, Susanna, Gillies, John, Ngeow, Evelyn·2011·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Despite the critical role of fidelity and the proliferation of intervention manuals and related measures, no comprehensive, structured guide exists, resulting in definitional confusion, varying interpretations of what constitutes core components, and inconsistent application of methods to ensure fidelity. To improve integration of fidelity criteria into intervention research, this review paper focuses on three aims: 1) to identify, define, and operationalize the key ingredients and components of intervention fidelity; 2) to identify consistency and uniformity in terms of core characteristics of fidelity; and, 3) to provide a comprehensive fidelity tool that assesses the core ingredients of fidelity that can be used by researchers to measure the degree of fidelity. Twenty-four (n=24) meta-analyses and review articles focusing on fidelity were identified in a systematic literature search over the past 30 years. A comprehensive review and fidelity guide outlining four required components of intervention research (design, training, monitoring of intervention delivery, and intervention receipt) was developed, with special consideration given to threats and measurement. Fidelity is imperative in all stages and phases of intervention research. This review and guide can be used by practitioners and researchers in their scientific process of designing and implementing community-based psychological, social, and behavioral intervention research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.09.007

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Researchers administered all training conditions while observed by additional researchers to keep intervention fidelity high.

    “Researchers administered all training conditions while observed by additional researchers in order to keep the intervention fidelity high (Gearing et al. 2011).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gearing, R. E., El-Bassel, N., Ghesquiere, A., Baldwin, S., Gillies, J., & Ngeow, E.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Gearing, Robin Edward
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-02
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
79-88
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005098924
Cited by
610
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 17
FWCI
22.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
intervention fidelity, fidelity assessment, intervention implementation, intervention manual, intervention training, behavioral interventions, social intervention, psychological intervention
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Humans, Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review