Rapid and accurate diagnostic testing is essential to bring the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to an end. As the demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing continues to increase amid supply shortages, many laboratories have investigated the use of sources other than nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Saliva and mid-turbinate nasal swabs are attractive alternatives as they allow for self-collection and are well-accepted by patients. Saliva also requires limited consumables. We compared the performance of health care provider-collected NP swabs, patient-collected mid-turbinate (MT) swabs, and patient-collected saliva specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a laboratory developed PCR assay that had received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA. Of 281 total evaluable samples, 33 (11.7%) NP swabs, 33 (11.7%) MT swabs, and 32 (11.4%) saliva specimens were positive for SARS-CoV-2 following resolution of discordant results. When compared to NP swabs, saliva exhibited a sensitivity of 90.9% (30/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248), while patient-collected MT swabs exhibited a sensitivity of 93.9% (31/33) and specificity of 99.2% (246/248). When comparing to the consensus standard, the sensitivity was 100% (31/31) for both NP and MT swabs and 96.8% (30/31) for saliva specimens, while specificity was the same in both NP swabs and saliva specimens (98.8% [247/250]) and 99.2% (248/250) for MT swabs. Pre-treatment of saliva with proteinase K and heating for 15 minutes prior to extraction reduced the invalid rate from 26.7% (52/195) to 0% (0/195). These data show that patient-collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs and saliva are suitable sources for self-collection in individuals who require routine monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 infection.