From lists of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to structured hierarchies

Comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCTs

James Cane, Michelle Richardson, Marie Johnston, Ruhina Ladha, Susan Michie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

95 Citations (Scopus)
33 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives
Behaviour change technique (BCT) Taxonomy v1 is a hierarchically grouped, consensus-based taxonomy of 93 BCTs for reporting intervention content. To enhance the use and understanding of BCTs, the aims of the present study were to (1) quantitatively examine the ‘bottom-up’ hierarchical structure of Taxonomy v1, (2) identify whether BCTs can be reliably mapped to theoretical domains using a ‘top-down’ theoretically driven approach, and (3) identify any overlap between the ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ groupings.

Methods and design
The ‘bottom-up’ structure was examined for higher-order groupings using a dendrogram derived from hierarchical cluster analysis. For the theory-based ‘top-down’ structure, 18 experts sorted BCTs into 14 theoretical domains. Discriminant Content Validity was used to identify groupings, and chi-square tests and Pearson's residuals were used to examine the overlap between groupings.

Results
Behaviour change techniques relating to ‘Reward and Punishment’ and ‘Cues and Cue Responses’ were perceived as markedly different to other BCTs. Fifty-nine of the BCTs were reliably allocated to 12 of the 14 theoretical domains; 47 were significant and 12 were of borderline significance. Thirty-four of 208 ‘bottom-up’ × ‘top-down’ pairings showed greater overlap than expected by chance. However, only six combinations achieved satisfactory evidence of similarity.

Conclusions
The moderate overlap between the groupings indicates some tendency to implicitly conceptualize BCTs in terms of the same theoretical domains. Understanding the nature of the overlap will aid the conceptualization of BCTs in terms of theory and application. Further research into different methods of developing a hierarchical taxonomic structure of BCTs for international, interdisciplinary work is now required.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)130-150
Number of pages21
JournalBritish Journal of Health Psychology
Volume20
Issue number1
Early online date12 May 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2015

Fingerprint

Cues
Punishment
Chi-Square Distribution
Reward
Cluster Analysis
Consensus
Research

Keywords

  • behaviour change
  • health
  • taxonomy
  • behaviour change technique
  • theory
  • theoretical domains framework
  • domains

Cite this

From lists of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to structured hierarchies : Comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCTs. / Cane, James; Richardson, Michelle; Johnston, Marie; Ladha, Ruhina; Michie, Susan.

In: British Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, 02.2015, p. 130-150.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0d34d52a3bbb4b9398e5f676cc2264c2,
title = "From lists of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to structured hierarchies: Comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCTs",
abstract = "ObjectivesBehaviour change technique (BCT) Taxonomy v1 is a hierarchically grouped, consensus-based taxonomy of 93 BCTs for reporting intervention content. To enhance the use and understanding of BCTs, the aims of the present study were to (1) quantitatively examine the ‘bottom-up’ hierarchical structure of Taxonomy v1, (2) identify whether BCTs can be reliably mapped to theoretical domains using a ‘top-down’ theoretically driven approach, and (3) identify any overlap between the ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ groupings.Methods and designThe ‘bottom-up’ structure was examined for higher-order groupings using a dendrogram derived from hierarchical cluster analysis. For the theory-based ‘top-down’ structure, 18 experts sorted BCTs into 14 theoretical domains. Discriminant Content Validity was used to identify groupings, and chi-square tests and Pearson's residuals were used to examine the overlap between groupings.ResultsBehaviour change techniques relating to ‘Reward and Punishment’ and ‘Cues and Cue Responses’ were perceived as markedly different to other BCTs. Fifty-nine of the BCTs were reliably allocated to 12 of the 14 theoretical domains; 47 were significant and 12 were of borderline significance. Thirty-four of 208 ‘bottom-up’ × ‘top-down’ pairings showed greater overlap than expected by chance. However, only six combinations achieved satisfactory evidence of similarity.ConclusionsThe moderate overlap between the groupings indicates some tendency to implicitly conceptualize BCTs in terms of the same theoretical domains. Understanding the nature of the overlap will aid the conceptualization of BCTs in terms of theory and application. Further research into different methods of developing a hierarchical taxonomic structure of BCTs for international, interdisciplinary work is now required.",
keywords = "behaviour change, health, taxonomy, behaviour change technique, theory, theoretical domains framework, domains",
author = "James Cane and Michelle Richardson and Marie Johnston and Ruhina Ladha and Susan Michie",
note = "Acknowledgements We would like to thank the BCT Taxonomy co-investigators Charles Abraham, Jill Francis, Wendy Hardeman, Martin Eccles, and CarolineWood for their comments and help in relation to this work. This work was supported through a Medical Research Council Health Service Research Collaboration grant (ref. G0901474).",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1111/bjhp.12102",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "130--150",
journal = "British Journal of Health Psychology",
issn = "1359-107X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - From lists of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to structured hierarchies

T2 - Comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCTs

AU - Cane, James

AU - Richardson, Michelle

AU - Johnston, Marie

AU - Ladha, Ruhina

AU - Michie, Susan

N1 - Acknowledgements We would like to thank the BCT Taxonomy co-investigators Charles Abraham, Jill Francis, Wendy Hardeman, Martin Eccles, and CarolineWood for their comments and help in relation to this work. This work was supported through a Medical Research Council Health Service Research Collaboration grant (ref. G0901474).

PY - 2015/2

Y1 - 2015/2

N2 - ObjectivesBehaviour change technique (BCT) Taxonomy v1 is a hierarchically grouped, consensus-based taxonomy of 93 BCTs for reporting intervention content. To enhance the use and understanding of BCTs, the aims of the present study were to (1) quantitatively examine the ‘bottom-up’ hierarchical structure of Taxonomy v1, (2) identify whether BCTs can be reliably mapped to theoretical domains using a ‘top-down’ theoretically driven approach, and (3) identify any overlap between the ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ groupings.Methods and designThe ‘bottom-up’ structure was examined for higher-order groupings using a dendrogram derived from hierarchical cluster analysis. For the theory-based ‘top-down’ structure, 18 experts sorted BCTs into 14 theoretical domains. Discriminant Content Validity was used to identify groupings, and chi-square tests and Pearson's residuals were used to examine the overlap between groupings.ResultsBehaviour change techniques relating to ‘Reward and Punishment’ and ‘Cues and Cue Responses’ were perceived as markedly different to other BCTs. Fifty-nine of the BCTs were reliably allocated to 12 of the 14 theoretical domains; 47 were significant and 12 were of borderline significance. Thirty-four of 208 ‘bottom-up’ × ‘top-down’ pairings showed greater overlap than expected by chance. However, only six combinations achieved satisfactory evidence of similarity.ConclusionsThe moderate overlap between the groupings indicates some tendency to implicitly conceptualize BCTs in terms of the same theoretical domains. Understanding the nature of the overlap will aid the conceptualization of BCTs in terms of theory and application. Further research into different methods of developing a hierarchical taxonomic structure of BCTs for international, interdisciplinary work is now required.

AB - ObjectivesBehaviour change technique (BCT) Taxonomy v1 is a hierarchically grouped, consensus-based taxonomy of 93 BCTs for reporting intervention content. To enhance the use and understanding of BCTs, the aims of the present study were to (1) quantitatively examine the ‘bottom-up’ hierarchical structure of Taxonomy v1, (2) identify whether BCTs can be reliably mapped to theoretical domains using a ‘top-down’ theoretically driven approach, and (3) identify any overlap between the ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ groupings.Methods and designThe ‘bottom-up’ structure was examined for higher-order groupings using a dendrogram derived from hierarchical cluster analysis. For the theory-based ‘top-down’ structure, 18 experts sorted BCTs into 14 theoretical domains. Discriminant Content Validity was used to identify groupings, and chi-square tests and Pearson's residuals were used to examine the overlap between groupings.ResultsBehaviour change techniques relating to ‘Reward and Punishment’ and ‘Cues and Cue Responses’ were perceived as markedly different to other BCTs. Fifty-nine of the BCTs were reliably allocated to 12 of the 14 theoretical domains; 47 were significant and 12 were of borderline significance. Thirty-four of 208 ‘bottom-up’ × ‘top-down’ pairings showed greater overlap than expected by chance. However, only six combinations achieved satisfactory evidence of similarity.ConclusionsThe moderate overlap between the groupings indicates some tendency to implicitly conceptualize BCTs in terms of the same theoretical domains. Understanding the nature of the overlap will aid the conceptualization of BCTs in terms of theory and application. Further research into different methods of developing a hierarchical taxonomic structure of BCTs for international, interdisciplinary work is now required.

KW - behaviour change

KW - health

KW - taxonomy

KW - behaviour change technique

KW - theory

KW - theoretical domains framework

KW - domains

U2 - 10.1111/bjhp.12102

DO - 10.1111/bjhp.12102

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 130

EP - 150

JO - British Journal of Health Psychology

JF - British Journal of Health Psychology

SN - 1359-107X

IS - 1

ER -