Fidelity of a Strengths-Based Intervention Used by Dutch Shelters for Homeless Young Adults
Abstract
Objective:
In a cluster randomized controlled trial, this study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of and fidelity to Houvast (Dutch for “grip”), a strengths-based intervention to improve the quality of life for homeless young adults.
Methods:
Fidelity was measured six months after professionals and team leaders at five Dutch shelters for homeless young adults finished their training in Houvast. Fidelity was measured with the Dutch version of the strengths model fidelity scale, which consists of ten indicators distributed across three subscales: structure, supervision, and clinical practice. A total fidelity score was composed by averaging the ten indicator scores for each facility. During one-day audits by two trained assessors visiting each facility, a file analysis (N=46), a focus group with homeless young adults (N=19), and interviews with the team leader and supervisor (N=9) were conducted. Professionals, supervisors, and team leaders completed questionnaires two weeks before the audit (N=43). In addition, an evaluation of the audit was conducted six months later.
Results:
Although none of the five shelters achieved a sufficient total model fidelity score, median scores on caseload, group supervision, and strengths assessment were satisfactory. Each facility received a report with a set of recommendations to improve model fidelity. The evaluation showed improvements in use of the strengths assessment and personal recovery plans and in supervision.
Conclusions:
Facilities face several challenges when implementing a new intervention, and implementing Houvast was no exception. Learning experiences and possible explanations for the insufficient total fidelity scores are reported.
Homelessness among young adults is a serious problem worldwide (1,2). Even though the estimation of homeless young adults in the Netherlands varies widely, the minimum estimate is 9,000 (2). Although this population experiences a wide range of problems, including abuse and trauma (3), addiction (4), and general medical and mental health problems (5,6), scientific evidence for effective interventions targeted at improving quality of life for this group is scarce (7). Moreover, there is a gap between homeless young adults’ expressed needs and the support provided by professionals (8,9). In the Netherlands, a strengths-based intervention for these youths, called Houvast (the Dutch word for “grip”), has been developed in collaboration with professionals and homeless young adults and manualized for standardized training and supervision of mental health professionals. The intervention is based on the strengths model as developed by Rapp and Goscha (10) and has been tailored to the homeless young adult population. The main aim of Houvast is to improve the quality of life of these youths by focusing on their strengths and stimulating their capacity for self-reliance.
Fidelity is the degree to which an intervention that is being applied in practice adheres to the model (11). For adequate implementation, a well-defined description of the intervention is required and includes an operational definition of the critical components and the tools to be used (12). Without this level of specificity, dissemination of a model is vulnerable to deviations in practice. This vulnerability highlights the importance of assessing the degree of fidelity when examining the effectiveness of an intervention.
Assessment of model fidelity also can be used as a tool for internal quality assurance. Based on its results, an action plan with concrete suggestions for improving further implementation of an intervention can be formulated (10). In addition, fidelity assessments help team leaders and management to satisfy the need for external accountability requirements. Also, funders and other stakeholders show increasing interest in fidelity assessments to ensure quality of service.
Over the past decade, there has been considerable methodological progress in the measurement of fidelity (10), as demonstrated by the development of fidelity scales for different models, such as assertive community treatment and the strengths model (10,13). Several studies have revealed that effective interventions compared with others tend to be characterized by higher fidelity scores that produce better client outcomes (11,12,14–19). Houvast is a strengths-based intervention for which a fidelity scale is available (10). This article describes the fidelity assessment of the Houvast intervention in five shelters for homeless young adults.
Methods
Participants
As part of a study of the effectiveness of Houvast, fidelity assessment of this strengths-based intervention was conducted among five Dutch shelters for homeless young adults. These facilities provide ambulant care (one facility), residential care (two facilities), or both (two facilities) to homeless young adults ages 18 to 26. More details on the effectiveness study can be found elsewhere (20).
Informed consent was obtained from homeless young adults as well as professionals. The study fulfilled the criteria for approval by an accredited Medical Review Ethics Committee within the region Arnhem-Nijmegen. Upon consultation, the Ethics Committee stated that because of the behavioral character of the intervention, the study (registration number 2011/260) was exempt from formal review.
Introduction and Implementation of Houvast
Houvast is based on the principles of the strengths model and uses the tools specified for the model. A theoretical framework and trajectory were elaborated, and training material, including new tools, was developed for working with homeless young adults. [Further information about Houvast and the implementation activities we used is presented in an online supplement to this article. This supplement also contains baseline demographic characteristics of the 117 participants and additional information about a progress evaluation held six months after the audit.]
In fall 2011, we introduced Houvast at all five shelters that were randomly allocated to the experimental condition of the study. Upon consenting to participate, two to three managers of each facility attended a meeting in which additional information on the study was provided, as well as guidelines to optimize the implementation of Houvast. Team leaders, who are responsible for team work and the daily organization of tasks at the shelters (such as creating work schedules), attended a two-day training session provided by certified trainers. Team leaders were taught how to support professionals in adhering to Houvast and to maintain quality in implementation, for example through group supervision meetings. In addition, all professionals who are responsible for the daily support of homeless young adults received a four-day training course in the same period (October 2011–January 2012). Six days of training (April 2012–May 2012) were provided to supervisors, who were part of the team and were responsible for providing feedback to professionals to attain fidelity to the Houvast model. Besides training in the basic aspects and competencies of supervision, supervisors were taught to review the Houvast tools, such as the strengths assessment and the personal recovery plan. Finally, in September 2012, all professionals attended a one-day follow-up training session.
Strengths Model Fidelity Scale
Fidelity was measured with the strengths model fidelity scale, developed and validated by Rapp and Goscha (21). Table 1 shows the Dutch strengths model fidelity scale, the data sources, and the instruments we used for assessment (10). The scale consists of ten indicators distributed across three subscales—structure, supervision, and clinical practice—and includes professionals’ responsibilities, caseload ratio, group supervision, supervisor duties and caseload, strengths assessment and its integration, use of personal recovery plans, community contact, use of naturally occurring resources, and use of hope-inducing behavior. Quality requirements are listed for each indicator.
| Subscale, indicator, and item | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Structure subscale | ||
| Professionals’ responsibilities | Time devoted to main responsibility of providing care | Questionnaire responses by professionals |
| What percentage of time do professionals spend providing strengths-based care and performing related responsibilities? | ||
| What percentage of professionals have mixed responsibilities? | ||
| Caseload ratio: what is the average weighted caseload size for the team? | Ideally, professionals’ caseload ratio is ≤20:1a | Questionnaire responses by professionals |
| Supervision subscale | ||
| Group supervision (group supervision focuses on discussion of clients rather than on administrative tasks; all professionals are present; 8-step group supervision process is followed; and quality of group supervision, assessed for the following: strengths assessments are handed out to each team member for all presentations, the professional clearly states during presentations when help is needed from the group, the professional clearly states what the client’s goals are, the team asks constructive questions based on the strengths assessment, the team brainstorms constructive suggestions related to the strengths assessment to help clients achieve goals or help the professional engage the client to develop goals, and the professional states a clear plan or strategy for each presentation and the next stepsb) | Degree to which group supervision is strengths based | Supervisor and auditor observation of group supervision |
| Supervisor | Questionnaire responses by supervisor | |
| Duties (supervisor spends ≥2 hours per week providing a quality review of tools related to the strengths-based modelc and integration of these tools into actual practice; ≥2 hours per week giving professionals specific feedback on skills and tools related to the strengths model; and ≥2 hours per week providing field mentoring for professionals) | ||
| Ratio of professionals to supervisor | ||
| Clinical practice subscale | ||
| Strengths assessment | A stand-alone tool used according to the strengths model | File analyses |
| Identifies client’s interests and aspirations; uses client-centered languaged; lists talents and skills; lists environmental strengths | ||
| Integration: assessment is used regularly to help clients develop their long-term recovery goals | Integration into practice | File analyses |
| Personal recovery plan (goals are in client-centered language; long-term goal is divided into smaller, measurable steps; specific and varying target dates are set for each step of the plan; plans are updated more than once per month) | Used as a stand-alone tool for helping clients achieve goals | Questionnaire responses by professionals; file analyses |
| Community contact: what percentage of contact occurs in the community? (include time spent in clients’ homes) | Amount of client contact within the community | Questionnaire responses by professionals, supervisor, and young adults |
| Naturally occurring resources (percentage of client goals on which the professional specifically helped the client access naturally occurring resources; percentage of long-term recovery goals that clearly reflect a trend toward using formal mental health services) | Naturally occurring resources are preferred over formal mental health resources | File analyses |
| Hope-inducing behavior (professionals use hope-inducing behaviors when interacting with people receiving services) | Questionnaire responses by and focus group input of young adults |
a
Ratio varies depending on intensity of caseload.
b
An average of 10 suggestions are generated per review.
c
Strengths assessments and personal recovery plan
d
For example, “I want more friends” rather than “increase socialization skills”
Each indicator is rated on a 5-point scale, as is commonly used in other fidelity research (22). For example, the item “Strengths assessment is used to help clients develop treatment plan goals” is rated as 1, up to 60% of the files; 2, 61%−70% of the files; 3, 71%−80% of the files; 4, 81%−90% of the files; or 5, 91%−100% of the files. A total fidelity score was obtained by averaging the scores on the ten indicators. A score of ≥4 indicates sufficient fidelity and <4 indicates insufficient fidelity (13,21).
Fidelity Assessment
To acquire a fidelity score, we translated and adjusted several fidelity assessment tools and methods, such as interview outlines, an observation scheme for group supervision, and questionnaires. Two trained assessors who had no relation to the teams conducted a one-day audit at each of the five facilities. During a four-day training course, assessors were taught how to conduct the audit, obtain measurements, and write a standardized report. During this training, the assessors’ scores on indicators were discussed until consensus was reached, and during the audit they obtained complete interrater agreement on the rating of group supervision.
Each audit included the following activities: observation of a group supervision meeting, a file analysis of a maximum of 12 files of six randomly chosen professionals whose clients received care for at least one month (N=46), five focus group interviews with three to four homeless young adults (N=19) who received care in the shelter for at least one month, and a separate interview with the team leader (N=5) and the supervisor (N=4) to gather additional information about their respective roles and the implementation of Houvast. Two weeks before the audit, the professionals, supervisors, and team leaders were asked to fill out a questionnaire on the use of Houvast (such as their use of personal recovery plans and naturally occurring resources). The homeless young adults who participated in the focus groups received care at the shelter for five to 47 weeks on average. Audits were conducted between June and September 2012.
Each shelter received a report on the audit, which included scores on the indicators, the total fidelity score, a summary of the results, and specific recommendations for improving model fidelity. Within six weeks after the audit, we held a conference call with the team leader, the supervisor, and the manager to evaluate the audit and to discuss the fidelity results and recommendations.
Booster Sessions and Progress Evaluation
On the basis of results of the fidelity scales, booster sessions were organized for the whole team (April–June 2013). During a booster session at each of the five shelters, a certified trainer discussed the recommendations of each fidelity report, and attendees practiced key elements of Houvast, for example by conducting role plays. Before the booster sessions were held, we evaluated the progress in fidelity since the audit. Team leaders and supervisors were asked whether the indicators of the fidelity scale (except hope-inducing behavior) had improved, deteriorated, or stayed the same compared with the audit in 2012. [Results are presented in the online supplement .]
Results
Characteristics of Participants in Fidelity Assessment
Each shelter had between five and 11 professionals using the Houvast method. In total, 43 professionals filled out the questionnaire. Nine professionals did not participate because of illness or for unknown reasons. At one shelter, all professionals completed the questionnaire. The average nonresponse rate at the other four facilities was 24% (range 9%−33%). Most of the professionals were women, and most had completed higher professional education for social work. The supervisors (N=4) had a mean±SD age of 47.6±16.3 years, were on contract to work 29 hours per week, and had worked in the organization for an average of 4.8 years. All team leaders (N=5) completed higher professional or university education and had a mean±SD age of 40.6±8.2 years.
Fidelity Scores
Table 2 shows the fidelity scores per indicator for the three subscales and the total fidelity score for all five shelters. The scores for the indicators were taken either during or after the audit, depending on indicator type. In addition, given that fidelity scores were not normally distributed, the median for the five facilities is reported. No sufficient fidelity scores of ≥4 were obtained on the total scale or on the three subscales for structure, supervision, and clinical practice; median scores, respectively, were 2.6, 3.0, 2.8, and 2.3.
| Facility | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measure | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Mdn |
| Indicator | ||||||
| Professionals’ responsibilities | 2.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Caseload ratio | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| Group supervision | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.9 | 3.0 | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| Supervisor | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| Strengths assessment | 4.5 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Integration of strengths assessment | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Personal recovery plan | 2.8 | 3.0 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 2.8 |
| Community contact | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Naturally occurring resources | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Hope-inducing behaviors | 3.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Subscale | ||||||
| Structure | 3.8 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 |
| Supervision | 2.7 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| Clinical practice | 2.6 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
| Total score | 2.9 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 2.6 |
a
Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating better model fidelity. A score of ≥4 indicates sufficient model fidelity.
At all five shelters, the fidelity scores were sufficient on the following three indicators: caseload ratio, group supervision, and strengths assessment. Caseload ratio and group supervision were sufficient at four of the five facilities, and strengths assessment was sufficient at three of the five facilities. Two shelters had sufficient scores on hope-inducing behavior. Furthermore, the execution of personal recovery plans and supervision of professionals was insufficient at all of the facilities. Only one facility used any naturally occurring resources. Moreover, all facilities received the lowest possible score on the indicator integration of the strengths assessment, and there was no evidence that professionals worked with young adults in the community (community contact). Finally, the insufficient fidelity score on the indicator professionals’ responsibilities indicates that almost all professionals had other responsibilities (completing intakes, for example) besides working with homeless young adults.
Recommendations for Improvement
On the basis of its lowest fidelity scores on the ten indicators, each shelter received a personalized report that gave three to five recommended priorities. Table 3 presents the most frequent suggestion for improvement per indicator. The progress evaluation of fidelity six months after the audit showed some improvement on use of the strengths assessment and personal recovery plans and on supervision.
| Subscale and indicator | Suggestion | For whom? |
|---|---|---|
| Structure subscale | ||
| Professionals’ responsibilities | Enable professionals to spend more time working with young adults and less time on other activities (such as intake interviews) | Organization |
| Caseload ratioa | — | |
| Supervision subscale | ||
| Group supervision | Closely follow the steps for conducting a group supervision to ensure optimal group supervision and an optimal learning environment for professionals | Professionals |
| Supervisor | Conduct field mentoring at least every 3 weeks and give each professional specific feedback on skills and tools related to the strengths model | Professionals and organization |
| Clinical practice subscale | ||
| Strengths assessmenta | — | |
| Integration of strengths assessment | Use the priorities written in the strengths assessment as a concrete goal for the personal recovery plan | Professionals |
| Personal recovery plan | Follow the quality requirements when working on the personal recovery plan with young adults; emphasize correct use of the recovery plan during the supervision of professionals | Professionals |
| Community contact | Stimulate professionals to explore possibilities to work more in the natural environment of young adults and discuss this during individual and group supervision | Professionals and organization |
| Naturally occurring resources | Encourage professionals to use naturally occurring resources and discuss this during individual and group supervision | Professionals |
| Hope-inducing behavior | Encourage professionals to increase use of hope-inducing behavior during individual and group supervision | Professionals |
a
No suggestions were given for these indicators because scores on these indicators were sufficient.
Discussion
This study is the first to report on the assessment of fidelity to Houvast, a strengths-based intervention for homeless young adults. The scores on three of the ten indicators of fidelity were sufficient six months after the introduction of Houvast at the shelters and after professionals and team leaders received training in the intervention: caseload ratio, group supervision, and strengths assessment. The total score for the five participating shelters for homeless young adults showed insufficient fidelity to Houvast, but the fidelity assessment provided the participating facilities with concrete guidelines for improvement.
This study showed that much still needs to be done to attain fidelity to the Houvast model. How can we explain the apparent gap between the application of Houvast in practice and model fidelity? This study marked the first time that the Dutch version of the strengths model fidelity scale was used, and its validity for use in the Netherlands may need further analysis. Although in this study the data were too limited to investigate the quality of the scale, the results constitute a first indication for face validity because the participating professionals, team leaders, and supervisors acknowledged the scale’s indicators and perceived the fidelity scores as credible. Furthermore, the auditors considered the fidelity scale to be a useful tool for assessing fidelity to the Houvast model, they reached consensus on the indicators’ scores, and they did not encounter any problems in applying the scale despite differences between the American and Dutch context.
From questionnaires filled out by professionals and from interviews with the supervisors and team leaders, we found that professionals were using Houvast tools inconsistently at the primary process level and seemed to have some difficulty with integrating the process with other training and as part of their daily routine. Some professionals, for example, regarded the personal recovery plan as less useful or as just another form to fill out instead of as something meaningful for their homeless young clients. Also, during the focus groups with homeless young adults and on the basis of information extracted from their completed questionnaires, we found that many professionals did not model hope-inducing behavior as Houvast requires. Perhaps they needed more time to adopt and express hope-inducing competencies, given that doing so requires a shift in attitude and not merely a behavioral change to be authentic. Moreover, supervisors mentioned that their workload was too high; thus not every professional received field mentoring. Also, because supervisors received their training after the professionals and team leaders in the first four months, supervisors’ skills may not have been optimal for ensuring implementation. Furthermore, professionals reported using institutionalized resources instead of naturally occurring resources. Institutionalized resources are services or facilities that are not available for every citizen in the community, such as mental health care and substance use treatment. In contrast, naturally occurring resources are services or facilities available for every citizen in the community, such as neighbors, friends, and clubs.
The paradigm shift professionals needed to make became clear from information retrieved from the interviews with supervisors and team leaders and the focus groups with homeless young adults: Houvast requires professionals to focus on the strengths and talents of homeless young adults rather than on their problems, even though this was not part of professionals’ formal training or daily routine. This shift required professionals also to let go of their control over service delivery and the working relationship and to become a coparticipant rather than the expert in the recovery process of homeless young adults (23,24). The questions professionals asked their supervisors, such as “What [can I] do with personal goals of homeless young adults that seem unrealistic?” indicate that the essentials of Houvast had not yet been fully adopted.
From questionnaires, interviews, and conference calls with supervisors and team leaders, we learned that there were also factors at the organizational level that inhibited the adoption of Houvast and that may have negatively influenced the scoring on all subscales. First, responses often indicated that time constraints made obtaining a sufficient fidelity score on indicators such as supervision and community contact nearly unachievable. Consequently, most supervisors provided supervision when professionals experienced difficulties in their work. Also, professionals were not always able to work in the community because the work schedule for the shelter facilities required them to work on site.
Second, in most organizations only the professionals working with homeless young adults at the same facilities received training in Houvast, whereas other professionals in the same organization working at other facilities did not receive Houvast training and worked according to a more problem-oriented approach. These differences, in turn, led to conflicting demands and expectations of the professionals using the Houvast approach. At one shelter, professionals had to work with Houvast tools as well as with the tools of the organization.
Third, some team leaders or supervisors mentioned reorganizations and financial reductions, which may have caused teams to be unstable and experience high turnover of employees. Although training was offered to new staff, few Houvast-trained professionals remained part of some teams.
Fourth, the Houvast tools were incorporated in the electronic file systems of only a few organizations. At facilities where the tools were not incorporated, professionals needed additional registration time for updating client records, and this time was not always available. More registration time was often necessary because the health insurers require problem-oriented registration to fund care, whereas the Houvast tools do not generate this type of information because of the strengths base of the approach.
For these reasons, the adoption of Houvast by all those involved in the implementation process was difficult to achieve in the six-month period between the introduction of Houvast and the fidelity assessment. What can be learned about implementing a strengths model? This model is more than a collection of tools; it is a philosophical approach that requires organizationwide adoption (25). Providing supervision of implementation of new practices is essential; to lead the effort, supervisors should be trained before professionals. Team leaders should also receive training (25).
In the six-month period, the implementation of Houvast focused mainly on the internal infrastructure of the facility (working according to the tools of Houvast) and captured neither the entire organization nor relevant external relations. As confirmed by supervisors and team leaders, training should be conducted not only for all professionals working with homeless young adults in the same organization but also for colleagues in the organization who are working with other groups and for those performing other tasks, such as working at the reception desk (25). An infrastructure that supports the implementation and maintenance of Houvast over time is essential to improve model fidelity (25,26). In addition, the availability of financial resources and the willingness of organizations to adopt the strengths-based approach and to take the necessary measures to make that happen (such as investing in supervision) are factors that could boost all fidelity indicators (27–29). Previous studies have corroborated the value of supportive leadership at multiple levels (30–32), and agency and program directors who can facilitate implementation (32) are essential for model fidelity. Furthermore, greater perceived benefit (33) and a high level of congruence between organizational values and characteristics of an intervention would facilitate implementation (32,34).
Conclusions
The Dutch strengths model fidelity scale appears to be a useful tool with face validity for assessing model fidelity. In this study, much effort was invested in a comprehensive plan for the introduction and implementation of Houvast at all levels of the shelter facilities, including management, team leaders, and professionals, and for the maintenance and strengthening of Houvast via supervision. Furthermore, training proceeded according to plan, and professionals, team leaders, and supervisors were enthusiastic about the training and the Houvast intervention. The low fidelity ratings may have resulted from the timing of the fidelity assessment, which was performed six months after the introduction of Houvast and the training of professionals. This period probably was too short for professionals to fully adopt the Houvast intervention into daily practice (19,25). Furthermore, to address the challenges that professionals and organizations faced when implementing and adopting Houvast, a more comprehensive approach is needed. Important components of such an approach are building an infrastructure, training the whole organization, and ensuring supportive leadership.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.201300425.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 108.16 KB
References
1.
Homeless youth. Washington, DC, National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2014. Available at www.endhomelessness.org/pages/youth
2.
Brummelhuis K, Drouven L: Counting Homeless Young Adults: Numbers Based on the Definition of 2010 [in Dutch]. Enschede, Netherlands, Bureau HHM, 2011
3.
Slesnick N, Dashora P, Letcher A, et al: A review of services and interventions for runaway and homeless youth: moving forward. Children and Youth Services Review 31:732–742, 2009
4.
Van der Ploeg J, Scholte E: Homeless Youth. London, Sage, 1997
5.
Korf DJ, Diemel S, Riper H, et al: The Next Station: Homeless Young Adults in the Netherlands [in Dutch]. Zwerfjongeren in Nederland. Amsterdam, Thela Thesis, 1999
6.
Sleegers J, Spijker J, van Limbeek J, et al: Mental health problems among homeless adolescents. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 97:253–259, 1998
7.
Altena AM, Brilleslijper-Kater SN, Wolf JL: Effective interventions for homeless youth: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 38:637–645, 2010
8.
Rensen P, van Arum S, Engbersen R: What Works [in Dutch]. Utrecht, Netherlands, Movisie/Trimbos-instituut, 2008
9.
De Winter M, Noom M: Someone who treats you as an ordinary human being . . . homeless youth examine the quality of professional care. British Journal of Social Work 33:325–338, 2003
10.
Rapp CA, Goscha RJ: The Strengths Model: A Recovery Oriented Approach to Mental Health Services. New York, Oxford University Press, 2011
11.
Bond GR, Evans L, Salyers MP, et al: Measurement of fidelity in psychiatric rehabilitation. Mental Health Services Research 2:75–87, 2000
12.
McGrew JH, Bond GR, Dietzen L, et al: Measuring the fidelity of implementation of a mental health program model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62:670–678, 1994
13.
Teague GB, Mueser KT, Rapp CA: Advances in fidelity measurement for mental health services research: four measures. Psychiatric Services 63:765–771, 2012
14.
Drake RE, Goldman HH, Leff HS, et al: Implementing evidence-based practices in routine mental health service settings. Psychiatric Services 52:179–182, 2001
15.
Blakely CH, Mayer JP, Gottschalk RG, et al: The fidelity-adaptation debate: implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology 15:253–268, 1987
16.
Cuddeback GS, Morrissey JP, Domino ME, et al: Fidelity to recovery-oriented ACT practices and consumer outcomes. Psychiatric Services 64:318–323, 2013
17.
Teague GB, Bond GR, Drake RE: Program fidelity in assertive community treatment: development and use of a measure. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 68:216–232, 1998
18.
McHugo GJ, Drake RE, Teague GB, et al: Fidelity to assertive community treatment and client outcomes in the New Hampshire dual disorders study. Psychiatric Services 50:818–824, 1999
19.
Fukui S, Goscha R, Rapp CA, et al: Strengths model case management fidelity scores and client outcomes. Psychiatric Services 63:708–710, 2012
20.
Krabbenborg MA, Boersma SN, Wolf JR: A strengths based method for homeless youth: effectiveness and fidelity of Houvast. BMC Public Health 13:359–369, 2013
21.
Rapp CA, Goscha RJ: The Strengths Model: Case Management With People With Psychiatric Disabilities. New York, Oxford University Press, 2006
22.
McHugo GJ, Drake RE, Whitley R, et al: Fidelity outcomes in the National Implementing Evidence-Based Practices Project. Psychiatric Services 58:1279–1284, 2007
23.
Cox AL: BSW students favor strengths/empowerment-based generalist practice. Families in Society 82:305–313, 2001
24.
Itzhaky H, Bustin E: Strengths and pathological perspectives in community social work. Journal of Community Practice 10:61–73, 2003
25.
Rapp CA, Goscha RJ, Carlson LS: Evidence-based practice implementation in Kansas. Community Mental Health Journal 46:461–465, 2010
26.
Rapp CA: The active ingredients of effective case management: a research synthesis. Community Mental Health Journal 34:363–380, 1998
27.
Drake RE, Torrey WC, McHugo GJ: Strategies for implementing evidence-based practices in routine mental health settings. Evidence-Based Mental Health 6:6–7, 2003
28.
Dale B, Boaden R, Wilcox M, et al: Sustaining continuous improvement: what are the key issues? Quality Engineering 11:369–377, 1999
29.
Aarons GA, Sawitzky AC: Organizational climate partially mediates the effect of culture on work attitudes and staff turnover in mental health services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health 33:289–301, 2006
30.
Aarons GA, Sommerfeld DH: Leadership, innovation climate, and attitudes toward evidence-based practice during a statewide implementation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 51:423–431, 2012
31.
Aarons GA: Transformational and transactional leadership: association with attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychiatric Services 57:1162–1169, 2006
32.
Aarons GA, Wells RS, Zagursky K, et al: Implementing evidence-based practice in community mental health agencies: a multiple stakeholder analysis. American Journal of Public Health 99:2087–2095, 2009
33.
Buchanan D, Fitzgerald L, Ketley D, et al: No going back: a review of the literature on sustaining organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews 7:189–205, 2005
34.
Klein KJ, Sorra JS: The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review 21:1055–1080, 1996
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: By the Pond, by Mary Cassatt, circa 1898. Color print with dry point and aquatint, fourth and final state (classmark: MEZAP+). Print collection, Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs, New York Public Library. Photo credit: The New York Public Library/Art Resource, New York City.
History
Received: 18 September 2013
Revision received: 26 May 2014
Revision received: 18 August 2014
Accepted: 26 September 2014
Published online: 2 February 2015
Published in print: May 01, 2015
Authors
Funding Information
This study was supported by grant 80-82435-98-10121 from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (Zon-Mw).The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).