RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The current study identified and compared different treatment fidelity reporting methods. METHOD: This paper includes 2 studies. In Study 1, the researchers compared and contrasted 3 sources of fidelity obtained in a study previously published by the authors; whereas, Study 2 did the same using a structured review of the literature. RESULTS: Fidelity reporting methods included: self-reports, peer reports, observations, artifact review, and use of standardized procedures. Study 1: a statistically significant difference in fidelity results was identified between methods. Study 2: the most common method of reporting was no reporting (46%) followed by observations (25.6%), peer ratings (25.6%), and self-report (23.1%). When studies reported that fidelity was evaluated, 57% subsequently provided specific fidelity results. CONCLUSIONS: Given that intervention fidelity is reported differently depending on the method used, then standard guidelines are needed for how this construct should be assessed and reported in practice and research.