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 Description Writing Evaluation
Objective: To evaluate a taxonomy for writing intervention descriptions through intercoder and test-retest reliability assessment and experimental testing of usefulness with 190 participants
Protocol Steps
Taxonomy Development via Delphi Procedure
Development of the taxonomy involved a Delphi procedure, an iterative process of revisions and consultation with international experts to create behaviour change technique taxonomy
Note: Involved 41 international experts in iterative consultation process
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
Hierarchical structure of the taxonomy list was developed using inductive 'bottom-up' and theory-driven 'top-down' open-sort procedures
Note: 36 participants engaged in open-sort procedures
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
Training in use of the taxonomy was provided through 1-day workshops and distance group tutorials to evaluate changes in intercoder reliability and validity
Note: 161 participants received training; evaluation measured 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”
Evaluation of Taxonomy for Coding Interventions
Evaluating the taxonomy for coding interventions was assessed by reliability measures (intercoder and test-retest) and validity assessment
Note: 40 trained coders participated in this evaluation phase
View evidence from paper
“evaluating the taxonomy for coding interventions was assessed by reliability (intercoder; test-retest) and validity (n = 40 trained coders)”
Evaluation of Taxonomy for Writing Descriptions
Evaluating the taxonomy for writing descriptions was assessed by reliability measures (intercoder and test-retest) and by experimentally testing its value
Note: 190 participants engaged in this evaluation phase
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)”
Intercoder Reliability Assessment
Assessment of intercoder reliability across the 93 behaviour change techniques in the taxonomy
Note: Good intercoder reliability was observed for 80 of the 93 BCTs
View evidence from paper
“Good intercoder reliability was observed for 80 of the 93 BCTs”
Test-Retest Reliability Assessment
Within-coder agreement was assessed after 1 month to evaluate test-retest reliability
Note: Good within-coder agreement was observed
View evidence from paper
“Good within-coder agreement was observed after 1 month (p < 0.001)”
Validity Assessment of Descriptions
Validity was assessed for behaviour change technique descriptions in the taxonomy
Note: Good validity was observed for 14 of 15 BCTs in the descriptions
View evidence from paper
“Validity was good for 14 of 15 BCTs in the descriptions”