Although we agree with Bond’s cautions concerning self-assessment for fidelity ratings as usually conducted, we believe that these concerns are most relevant for self-rated fidelity and that carefully collected self-reported data can be a valid and sole source for independent fidelity raters. Moreover, because all fidelity assessment methods use some self-reported data, differences are a matter of degree. Our approach assumes that the chief source of self-report invalidity is subjectivity in defining items and data needed to make ratings and that most people will report accurately when asked directly and clearly. To establish more objective procedures, we created a detailed protocol to gather data to score scale items, piloting and revising it over several years. For example, instead of asking, “Do you provide 24-hour coverage?” we ask, “What percentage of clients in crisis directly talk to staff after hours?” Instead of asking, “Are you involved with 95% of admissions?” we ask, “Describe team involvement with the past ten admissions.” In addition, we use independent raters to score the self-reported data and do not permit self-scoring of items. We believe that self-presentation biases are most problematic when self-scoring is used. In our study, for example, self-reported fidelity generally produced lower scores than phone fidelity.