My broader concern is the message that this study sends the mental health field. State mental health administrators and program leaders in underresourced service systems may overinterpret and misapply the findings, despite the authors’ caveats. Although the authors stress that self-reported fidelity is most appropriate for “stable, existing teams with good prior fidelity,” this study might be used as justification for wholesale adoption of self-assessment as an expedient alternative to independent fidelity reviews. The self-report approach might be extended to other evidence-based practices, even those with less precise fidelity scales. Most worrisome are self-report assessments conducted by practitioners, researchers, and others who have no direct experience with a model and who lack training in its fidelity scale. Unfortunately, misapplication of fidelity scales by unqualified users is already widespread. The research literature is filled with evaluations of purportedly “high-fidelity” programs that bear little resemblance to the original models. Inaccurate self-labeling of programs was widespread decades ago before dissemination of fidelity scales, and, unfortunately, this remains true today.