Cited by 1,756Behavioral Health and InterventionsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: The CALO-RE taxonomy

Open access
Michie, Susan, Ashford, Stefanie, Sniehotta, Falko F., Dombrowski, Stephan U., Bishop, Alex, French, David P.·2011·Psychology & Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current reporting of intervention content in published research articles and protocols is generally poor, with great diversity of terminology, resulting in low replicability. This study aimed to extend the scope and improve the reliability of a 26-item taxonomy of behaviour change techniques developed by Abraham and Michie [Abraham, C. and Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behaviour change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology, 27(3), 379-387.] in order to optimise the reporting and scientific study of behaviour change interventions. METHODS: Three UK study centres collaborated in applying this existing taxonomy to two systematic reviews of interventions to increase physical activity and healthy eating. The taxonomy was refined in iterative steps of (1) coding intervention descriptions, and assessing inter-rater reliability, (2) identifying gaps and problems across study centres and (3) refining the labels and definitions based on consensus discussions. RESULTS: Labels and definitions were improved for all techniques, conceptual overlap between categories was resolved, some categories were split and 14 techniques were added, resulting in a 40-item taxonomy. Inter-rater reliability, assessed on 50 published intervention descriptions, was good (kappa = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: This taxonomy can be used to improve the specification of interventions in published reports, thus improving replication, implementation and evidence syntheses. This will strengthen the scientific study of behaviour change and intervention development.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08870446.2010.540664

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Marks, D. F. (2009). Editorial: How should psychology interventions be reported? Journal of Health Psychology, 14(4), 475-489.
  2. Michie, S. (2008). What works and how? design more effective interventions need answers to both quations. Addiction, 103(6), 886.
  3. Michie, S., Rothman, A. J., & Sheeran, P. (2007). Psychology and Health, 22(3), 249- 253.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Michie, S., Ashford, S., Sniehotta, F. F., Dombrowski, S. U., Bishop, A., & French, D. P.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Coventry University (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Michie, Susan
Venue
Psychology & Health
Published
2011-11
Volume
26
Issue
11
Pages
1479-1498
ISSN
  • 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-8321
OpenAlex
W2013620493
Cited by
1,756
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 112 · 2022: 163 · 2021: 157 · 2020: 206 · 2019: 135 · 2018: 162 · 2017: 112 · 2016: 138 · 2015: 117 · 2014: 83 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 33
FWCI
88.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychology and Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Coventry University Open Collections (Coventry university) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • The Open Collections (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council (G0900686)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007470/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
behaviour change techniques, physical activity interventions, healthy eating interventions, inter-rater reliability, intervention replication
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Feeding Behavior, United Kingdom, Humans, Exercise, Risk Reduction Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review