↓ Skip to main content

Applying the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy v1: a study of coder training

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Behavioral Medicine, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Applying the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy v1: a study of coder training
Published in
Translational Behavioral Medicine, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13142-014-0290-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline E Wood, Michelle Richardson, Marie Johnston, Charles Abraham, Jill Francis, Wendy Hardeman, Susan Michie

Abstract

Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1) has been used to detect active ingredients of interventions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness of user training in improving reliable, valid and confident application of BCTTv1 to code BCTs in intervention descriptions. One hundred sixty-one trainees (109 in workshops and 52 in group tutorials) were trained to code frequent BCTs. The following measures were taken before and after training: (i) inter-coder agreement, (ii) trainee agreement with expert consensus, (iii) confidence ratings and (iv) coding competence. Coding was assessed for 12 BCTs (workshops) and for 17 BCTs (tutorials). Trainees completed a course evaluation. Methods improved agreement with expert consensus (p < .05) but not inter-coder agreement (p = .08, p = .57, respectively) and increased confidence for BCTs assessed (both p < .05). Methods were as effective as one another at improving coding competence (p = .55). Training was evaluated positively. The training improved agreement with expert consensus, confidence for BCTs assessed, coding competence but not inter-coder agreement. This varied according to BCT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 75 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 31%
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Unspecified 8 10%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Other 14 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,198,271
of 13,755,459 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#86
of 631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,946
of 299,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,755,459 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.