The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How to evaluate technologies for health behavior change in HCI research
Abstract
New technologies for encouraging physical activity, healthy diet, and other types of health behavior change now frequently appear in the HCI literature. Yet, how such technologies should be evaluated within the context of HCI research remains unclear. In this paper, we argue that the obvious answer to this question - that evaluations should assess whether a technology brought about the intended change in behavior - is too limited. We propose that demonstrating behavior change is often infeasible as well as unnecessary for a meaningful contribution to HCI research, especially when in the early stages of design or when evaluating novel technologies. As an alternative, we suggest that HCI contributions should focus on efficacy evaluations that are tailored to the specific behavior-change intervention strategies (e.g., self-monitoring, conditioning) embodied in the system and studies that help gain a deep understanding of people's experiences with the technology.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“First, they focus on clinical outcomes, which are often more distal to the behavioral targets of specific BIT interventions and are unlikely to change within the timeframe necessary to inform design considerations or to submit BITs to rapid development, evaluation, and iteration [4].”
From The Behavioral Intervention Technology Model: An Integrated Conceptual and Technological Framework for eHealth and mHealth Interventions (2014) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“First, they focus on clinical outcomes, which are often more distal to the behavioral targets of specific BIT interventions and are unlikely to change within the timeframe necessary to inform design considerations or to submit BITs to rapid development, evaluation, and iteration [4].”
From The Behavioral Intervention Technology Model: An Integrated Conceptual and Technological Framework for eHealth and mHealth Interventions (2014) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“Much of the evaluation of BITs has focused on efficacy, which limits the growth in our knowledge regarding the mechanisms by which BITs achieve both their proximal intervention aims as well as the ultimate treatment goals [4].”
From The Behavioral Intervention Technology Model: An Integrated Conceptual and Technological Framework for eHealth and mHealth Interventions (2014) · cites this paper as [4]
Citations
Cites
The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 · Cited by 34,210
Social psychology: handbook of basic principles
Higgins, E., & Kruglanski, A. (2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-3496 · Cited by 5,535
Social psychology: handbook of basic principles
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3595 · Cited by 4,970
Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle?
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247 · Cited by 4,510
Validity and reliability of the Experience-Sampling Method
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M., & LARSON, R. (1987) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-198709000-00004 · Cited by 2,544
Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience.
Higgins, E. T. (1996) · Cited by 1,970
The automated will: nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals.
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trötschel, R. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1014 · Cited by 1,865
Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns.
Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.774 · Cited by 1,724
Consolvo, S., McDonald, D. W., Toscos, T., Chen, M. Y., Froehlich, J. E., Harrison, B. L., Klasnja, P., LaMarca, A., LeGrand, L., Libby, R., et al. (2008) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357335 · Cited by 1,133
Self-citationSystematic Review of the Literature
Wool, C. (2011) · Advances in Neonatal Care · doi:10.1097/anc.0b013e31821bd92d · Cited by 1,021
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–414 of 414
Hermsen, S. (2022) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2022.159
Intelligent Decision Support in Personal Health: Personalized Health Coaching in Type 2 Diabetes
Mamykina, L., Mitchell, E. G., Desai, P. M., & Albers, D. J. (2024) · Cognitive informatics in biomedicine and healthcare · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-69947-4_17
LIFETRACE: A Longitudinal Multimodal Dataset on Daily Physical Activity, Well-Being, and Habits
Bona, F. B. D., Câmpanu, I. A., Langheinrich, M., Gjoreski, M., & Juravle, G. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3770676
Designing Democratic Toolkits for Making Expressive Interactive Physical Prototypes
van Iterson, H. C. (2026) · International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI) · doi:10.1145/3731459.3779038
Xu, J., Zhang, C., Cuijpers, R. H., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2026) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1145/3757279.3785565
Go, J., & Karava, P. (2026) · Lecture notes in civil engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-10546-2_41
Tendling: Designing An Embodied AI Pillow for Everyday Emotion Regulation
Han, G., Agarwal, S., Barrios, A., Joshi, N., & Leigh, S.-W. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3799115
Pasumarthy, N., Nguyen, M. H., Krishnan, A. R., Montoya, M. F., Patibanda, R., Danaher, J., Khot, R. A., van den Hoven, E., & Mueller, F. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790973
Szymanski, A., Jo, J., Sawwan, M., Eicher‐Miller, H. A., Conrado, A.-M., Wood, D. M., Dillahunt, T. R., & Metoyer, R. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3793193
Güldenpfennig, F., Zechner, N., Tîrcob, D., Köck, J., Köstlin, D., & Hödl, O. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791860
Munson, S. A., Mentis, H. M., Siek, K. A., Kuo, P.-Y. P., Lee, U., Riek, L. D., Singh, A., & Wiese, J. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare · doi:10.1145/3844900
Yan, X., Hassett, A. L., Waljee, J. F., Newman, M., Park, S. Y., Bei, R., & Carlozzi, N. E. (2026) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/64278
Kim, H., Kim, S., Kim, J., & Park, S. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/101150
Metadata
- Authors
- Klasnja, P., Consolvo, S., & Pratt, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Intel (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-05-07
- Pages
- 3063-3072
- OpenAlex
- W2003659858
- Cited by
- 414
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 16.21
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- health behavior change, technology evaluation, behaviour change interventions, self-monitoring, conditioning, physical activity, healthy eating, user experience, preliminary design
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
