Source Paper
Behaviour change techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative data)
Susan Michie, Caroline E Wood, Marie Johnston, Charles Abraham, Jill J Francis et al.
Health Technology Assessment • 2015
Delphi Procedure for Taxonomy Development
Objective: To develop a method of specifying content of behaviour change interventions in terms of component behaviour change techniques and to achieve multidisciplinary and international acceptance for future development
This is a Delphi Procedure for Taxonomy Development protocol using human as the model organism. The procedure involves 5 procedural steps. Extracted from a 2015 paper published in Health Technology Assessment.
Model and subjects
human • 400
Study window
Estimated timing pending
Core workflow
Delphi Procedure with Expert Panel • Hierarchical Structure Development • Training in Taxonomy Use
Primary readouts
- Number of distinct, non-overlapping behaviour change techniques identified (93 BCTs)
- Clustering of BCTs into groupings (16 groupings using bottom-up procedure)
- Intercoder reliability for BCT identification (80 of 93 BCTs showed good reliability)
- Within-coder agreement after 1 month (p < 0.001)
Key equipment and reagents
Verified items
0
Direct vendor links
0
Use this page as an execution guide, then fall back to the source paper whenever you need exact exclusions, dosing details, or assay-specific caveats.
Confirm first
- Verify the animal model, intervention setup, and collection timepoints against the source paper.
- Check that every direct vendor link matches the exact specification your lab plans to run.
Use the page like this
- Work through the protocol steps in order and use the inline vendor chips only when you need to source or verify an item.
- Jump to Experimental Context for readouts, data shape, and analysis flow before planning downstream analysis.
Protocol Steps
Start here. The step list is optimized for running the experiment, with direct vendor links available inline when you need to source a cited item.
Delphi Procedure with Expert Panel
Conducted an iterative process of revisions and consultation with 41 international experts to develop the behaviour change technique taxonomy
Note: This was the primary method for taxonomy development involving multiple rounds of expert consultation
View evidence from paper
“Development of the taxonomy involved a Delphi procedure, an iterative process of revisions and consultation with 41 international experts”
Hierarchical Structure Development
Developed hierarchical structure of the taxonomy list using inductive 'bottom-up' and theory-driven 'top-down' open-sort procedures with 36 participants
Note: Both bottom-up and top-down approaches were used to organize the BCTs into groupings
View evidence from paper
“hierarchical structure of the list was developed using inductive 'bottom-up' and theory-driven 'top-down' open-sort procedures (n = 36)”
Training in Taxonomy Use
Provided training in use of the taxonomy through 1-day workshops and distance group tutorials with 161 participants
Note: Training methods were evaluated by changes in intercoder reliability and validity (agreement with expert consensus)
View evidence from paper
“training in use of the taxonomy (1-day workshops and distance group tutorials) (n = 161) was evaluated by changes in intercoder reliability and validity”
Evaluate Taxonomy for Coding Interventions
Assessed the taxonomy for coding interventions by evaluating reliability (intercoder; test-retest) and validity with 40 trained coders
Note: Reliability and validity measures were used to assess coding performance
View evidence from paper
“evaluating the taxonomy for coding interventions was assessed by reliability (intercoder; test-retest) and validity (n = 40 trained coders)”
Evaluate Taxonomy for Writing Descriptions
Assessed the taxonomy for writing descriptions by evaluating reliability (intercoder; test-retest) and by experimentally testing its value with 190 participants
Note: Both reliability measures and experimental testing were conducted
View evidence from paper
“evaluating the taxonomy for writing descriptions was assessed by reliability (intercoder; test-retest) and by experimentally testing its value (n = 190)”