CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 302Health Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Patient Involvement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measurement of Fidelity in Psychiatric Rehabilitation

Bond, Gary R., Evans, Lisa, Salyers, Michelle P., Williams, Jane, Kim, Hea-Won·2000·Mental Health Services Research
DOI 10.1023/a:1010153020697
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Until recently, most psychiatric rehabilitation models have been poorly defined and few have had systematic methods for measuring their implementation. We review the historical roots for the development of fidelity measures and describe recent applications in both research and practice.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1010153020697

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • Therapists were trained to competence, defined as completing course-work, passing tests, mastering the intervention, demonstrating fidelity of 85% of maximum scores on the fidelity instrument, and maintaining ongoing fidelity.

    “Therapists were trained to competence, defined as completing course-work, passing tests, mastering the intervention, demonstrating fidelity of 85% of maximum scores on the fidelity instrument, and maintaining ongoing fidelity.20”

    From Randomized, Controlled Trial of an Intervention for Toddlers With Autism: The Early Start Denver Model (2010) · cites this paper as [20]

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 79 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Allness, D. J., & Knoedler, W. H. (1998). The PACT model of community-based treatment for persons with severe and persistent mental illness: A manual for PACT start-up. Arlington, VA: NAMI.
  2. Anthony, W. A., Cohen, M. R., & Pierce, R. M. (1980). Instructor's guide to the psychiatric rehabilitation practice series. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
  3. Barton, R. (1997). Psychosocial rehabilitation services and community support systems: Outcomes research and policy implications. Springfield, IL: Office of Mental Health of the Illinois Department of Human Services.
  4. Becker, D. R., & Drake, R. E. (1993).A working life: The Individual Placement and Support (IPS) Program. Concord, NH: New Hampshire-Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center.
  5. Bond, G. R., Becker, D. R., Drake, R. E., & Vogler, K. M. (1997). A fidelity scale for the Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40, 265-284.
  6. Bond, G. R., Evans, L., Kim, H., & Goodman, C. (1999b). Evaluation of Connect98. Phase II: Site visits by network staff.Final report to Illinois Office of Mental Health. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.
  7. Cochrane, J., Durbin, J., & Goering, P. (1997). Best practices in mental health reform: Discussion paper. Toronto, ON: Clarke Institute of Psychiatry.
  8. Dewan, N. A., & Carpenter, D. (1997). Performance measurement in healthcare delivery systems. In L. J. Dickstein, M. B. Riba, & J. M. Oldham (Eds.), American Psychiatric Press Review of Psychiatry (Vol. 16, pp. 81-102). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
  9. Hall, L. L., Edgar, E. R., & Flynn, L. M. (1997). Stand and deliver: Action call to a failing industry. Arlington, VA: National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
  10. Hargreaves, W. A., Shumway, M., Hu, T. W., & Cuffel, B. (1998). Cost-outcomemethods for mental health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  11. Hogarty, G. E. (1995). Schizophrenia and modern mental health services. Decade of the Brain, 6(1), 3-6.
  12. Hughes, R. (1999). The meaning of ''evidence based'' services in PSR. IAPSRS Connection, 2(1) 10-12.
  13. Hughes, R., & Clement, J. (1999, March 1). Time to end the model wars. IAPSRS Connection, 1, 1.
  14. IAPSRS. (1997a). IAPSRS position paper: The single model trap. Columbia, MD: International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services.
  15. IAPSRS. (1997b). Practice guidelines for the psychiatric rehabilitation of persons with severe and persistent mental illness in a managed care environment. Columbia, MD: International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services.
  16. Jerrell, J. M., & Hargreaves, W. A. (1991). The operating philosophy of community programs (Working Paper 18). Berkeley, CA: Institute for Mental Health Services Research.
  17. Latimer, E. (1999a). Conseil d'e´valuation des technologies de la sante´ du Que´bec. Suivi intensif en e´quipe dans la communaute´ pour personnes atteintes de troubles mentaux graves (CETS 99-1 RF). Montreal: CETS.
  18. Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  19. Moos, R. H. (1974). Community Oriented Program Environment Scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
  20. Noble, J. H. (1991). The benefits and costs of supported employment for people with mental illness and with traumatic brain injury in New York State (C-0023180). Buffalo, NY: Research Foundation of the State University of New York.
  21. Rapp, C. A. (1999). Best Practice Fidelity Tools. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas School of Social Welfare.
  22. Torrey, E. F., Erdman, K., Wolfe, S. M., & Flynn, L. M. (1990). Care of the seriously mentally ill: A rating of state programs (3rd ed.). Arlington, VA: National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
  23. Torrey, W. C., & Wyzik, P. F. (1997). New Hampshire clinical practice guidelines for adults in community support programs. Lebanon, NH: West Central Services.
  24. Zahrt, D. M., Bond, G. R., Salyers, M. P., & Teague, G. B. (1999). Dartmouth ACT Fidelity Scale: A practical application in a statewide project. Unpublished paper. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Bond, G. R., Evans, L., Salyers, M. P., Williams, J., & Kim, H.-W.
Affiliations
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
ORCID
Venue
Mental Health Services Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2000-06
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
75-87
ISSN
  • 1522-3434 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6636
DOI
10.1023/a:1010153020697
OpenAlex
W2133601601
Cited by
302
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 16
FWCI
14.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Mental Health Services Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k02mh000842-10)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-00842)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
fidelity assessment, psychiatric rehabilitation, implementation fidelity, program evaluation
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Program Evaluation, Treatment Outcome

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