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
Taxonomy Coding Reliability and Validity Testing
Objective: Assessment of taxonomy reliability through intercoder and test-retest measures and validity assessment with 40 trained coders for coding interventions using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1)
This is a Taxonomy Coding Reliability and Validity Testing 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 • 40
Study window
Estimated timing pending
Core workflow
Coder Training • Intercoder Reliability Assessment • Test-Retest Reliability Assessment
Primary readouts
- Intercoder reliability for coding interventions
- Test-retest reliability (within-coder agreement)
- Validity of coded interventions (agreement with expert consensus)
- Proportion of coders achieving competence
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.
Coder Training
Participants received training in use of the taxonomy through two methods: 1-day workshops and distance group tutorials
Note: Training was provided to 161 participants total, with 40 of these trained coders subsequently evaluated for reliability and validity
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”
Intercoder Reliability Assessment
Assessment of agreement between multiple coders when coding the same interventions using BCTTv1
Note: Good intercoder reliability was observed for 80 of the 93 BCTs
View evidence from paper
“evaluating the taxonomy for coding interventions was assessed by reliability (intercoder; test-retest) and validity (n = 40 trained coders)”
Test-Retest Reliability Assessment
Assessment of within-coder agreement by having coders code the same interventions at different time points
Note: Good within-coder agreement was observed after 1 month with statistical significance p < 0.001
View evidence from paper
“Good within-coder agreement was observed after 1 month (p < 0.001)”
Validity Assessment
Assessment of validity through agreement with expert consensus for coded interventions
Note: Validity was assessed for 40 trained coders. Both training methods improved validity (both p < 0.05)
View evidence from paper
“validity (agreement with expert consensus); evaluating the taxonomy for coding interventions was assessed by reliability (intercoder; test-retest) and validity (n = 40 trained coders)”
Competence and Confidence Evaluation
Evaluation of changes in coder competence and confidence in identifying BCTs following training
Note: Training doubled the proportion of coders achieving competence and improved confidence in identifying BCTs in workshops (both p < 0.001)
View evidence from paper
“Both training methods improved validity (both p < 0.05), doubled the proportion of coders achieving competence and improved confidence in identifying BCTs in workshops (both p < 0.001)”