Compare methods

	Motivational Interviewing Fidelity Coding	Case Management Fidelity Assessment
Field	Social Work	Social Work
Family	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Year of origin	2016	1998
Originator	Theresa B. Moyers, William R. Miller & colleagues (CASAA, University of New Mexico)	Gregory Teague, Gary Bond & Robert Drake (Dartmouth ACT fidelity tradition)
Type	Observational coding system for rating fidelity to motivational interviewing	Structured rating of a case-management program's adherence to a defined service model
Seminal source	Moyers, T. B., Rowell, L. N., Manuel, J. K., Ernst, D., & Houck, J. M. (2016). The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Code (MITI 4): Rationale, preliminary reliability and validity. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 65, 36–42.	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.
Aliases	MITI, Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity, MI Fidelity Coding, MI Treatment Integrity	Case Management Model Fidelity, Care Coordination Fidelity, Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity, DACTS Fidelity Scale
Related	4	4
Summary	Motivational interviewing fidelity coding measures how faithfully and skillfully a practitioner delivers motivational interviewing (MI), the collaborative, change-talk-oriented counseling style. The dominant system, the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) code developed by Theresa Moyers, William Miller, and colleagues, has trained raters listen to recorded sessions and produce global ratings of the clinician's MI spirit alongside counts of specific behaviors, which combine into summary indices benchmarked against competency thresholds — making it a worked example of practice-specific treatment fidelity.	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.