Compare methods

	Case Management Fidelity Assessment	Treatment Fidelity Assessment
Field	Social Work	Social Work
Family	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Year of origin	1998	2004
Originator	Gregory Teague, Gary Bond & Robert Drake (Dartmouth ACT fidelity tradition)	NIH Behavior Change Consortium Treatment Fidelity Workgroup (Bellg et al.)
Type	Structured rating of a case-management program's adherence to a defined service model	Assessment of the degree to which an intervention is delivered as intended
Seminal source	Teague, G. B., Bond, G. R., & Drake, R. E. (1998). Program fidelity in assertive community treatment: Development and use of a measure. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(2), 216–232.	Bellg, A. J., Borrelli, B., Resnick, B., Hecht, J., Minicucci, D. S., Ory, M., Ogedegbe, G., Orwig, D., Ernst, D., & Czajkowski, S. (2004). Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: Best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Health Psychology, 23(5), 443–451.
Aliases	Case Management Model Fidelity, Care Coordination Fidelity, Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity, DACTS Fidelity Scale	Treatment Integrity, Intervention Fidelity, Implementation Fidelity, Fidelity Monitoring
Related	4	4
Summary	Case management fidelity assessment measures how closely a case-management or care-coordination program matches the defined model it claims to implement — such as assertive community treatment, intensive case management, or a strengths model — by rating specific structural and process dimensions on anchored scales and aggregating them into an overall fidelity score. The approach was established by the Dartmouth tradition of Teague, Bond, and Drake, whose Assertive Community Treatment fidelity scale became the template for measuring whether a program is delivering its model in practice or only in name.	Treatment fidelity assessment measures the degree to which an intervention is actually delivered as it was designed — covering adherence to prescribed components, the competence with which they are delivered, the dose received, and how clearly the intervention differs from other approaches. Codified for behavioral research by the NIH Behavior Change Consortium and framed conceptually by Carroll and colleagues, it protects the validity of intervention research and the integrity of evidence-based practice by ensuring that when an intervention is studied or implemented, what was named is what was done.