In this commentary, the issue of fidelity assessment is addressed as it relates to Strain and Bovey’s article (2011). Four reasons are provided for measuring fidelity in intervention studies. Measuring fidelity (a) potentially allows investigators to document the findings were not due to the lack of fidelity in a study; (b) presents information about how transportable interventions are to the real world; (c) provides information for replication studies; and (d) sheds light on the nature of children’s experiences in the study.
BartonE. E.KinderK.CaseyA. M.ArtmanK. M. (2011). Finding your feedback fit: Strategies for designing and delivering performance feedback systems. Young Exceptional Children, 14(1), 29–46.
2.
BillingsleyF. F.WhiteO. R.MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
3.
GastD. L. (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
PerepletchikovaR.KazdinA. E. (2005). Treatment integrity and therapeutic change: Issues and research recommendations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 365–383.
5.
StrainP. S.BoveyE. H. (2011). Randomized, controlled trial of the LEAP model of early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 133–154.
6.
UlinD. L. (2010). The lost art of reading: Why books matter in a distracted time. Seattle, WA: Sasquatch Books.
