Skip to main content

Table 2 Means for all measured variables across Studies 1, 2 and 3 (standard deviations given in brackets)

From: Reporting behaviour change interventions: do the behaviour change technique taxonomy v1, and training in its use, improve the quality of intervention descriptions?

    Study 1   Study 2   Study 3  
    Effect of using BCTTv1 (between-group) Effect of training and using BCTTv1 (between-group) Effect of training and using BCTTv1 (within-group)
Research question   Video Untrained + no taxonomy
(n = 24)
Untrained + taxonomy
(n = 18)
Untrained + no taxonomy
(n = 29)
Trained + taxonomy
(n = 56)
Untrained + no taxonomy
(n = 39)
Trained + taxonomy
(n = 39)
1 ‘I can clearly visualise what was delivered in the intervention’   0.83 (1.44) 1.47 (1.18) 1.76 (0.62) 0.88 (1.07) −0.13 (1.20) 0.64 (1.48)
1 1.75 (0.60) 0.94 (1.40) 1.71 (0.82) 0.55 (1.19) 0.26 (1.09) 0.83 (1.52)
2 0.38 (1.53) 1.90 (0.81) 1.45 (0.64) 0.51 (1.23) −0.53 (1.21) 0.45 (1.44)
‘I can clearly visualise how the intervention was delivered’   1.02 (1.37) 1.53 (1.16) 1.14 (1.14) 0.14 (1.09) −0.17 (1.19) 0.59 (1.61)
1 1.94 (0.62) 0.94 (1.18) 1.00 (1.03) 0.00 (1.26) 0.29 (1.14) 0.68 (1.73)
2 0.56 (1.42) 2.00 (0.94) 0.70 (1.64) −0.42 (1.05) −0.63 (1.04 0.50 (1.53)
‘Someone would be able to replicate what was delivered in the intervention’   0.69 (1.56) 1.39 (1.30) 1.64 (0.76) 1.02 (0.86) −0.18 (1.22) 0.40 (1.50)
1 1.56 (0.42) 0.87 (1.41) 1.53 (0.92) 1.05 (1.09) 0.16 (1.07) 0.38 (1.39)
2 0.25 (1.74) 1.80 (1.11) 1.55 (0.69) 0.81 (0.81) −0.53 (1.29) 0.43 (1.63)
‘Someone would be able to replicate how the intervention was delivered’   0.69 (1.56) 1.42 (1.10) 1.31 (0.88) 0.47 (1.04) −0.25 (1.17) 0.45 (1.47)
1 1.50 (0.71) 1.00 (1.10) 1.18 (0.92) 0.43 (1.20) 0.11 (1.14) 0.45 (1.41)
2 0.28 (1.72) 1.75 (1.03) 1.05 (0.93) 0.28 (1.01) −0.61 (1.11) 0.45 (1.56)
2 Reliability of BCT identification (PABAK between coders)   0.86 (0.05) 0.88 (0.05) 0.84 (0.07) 0.87 (0.06) 0.85 (0.06) 0.86 (0.06)
1 0.87 (0.06) 0.88 (0.06) 0.84 (0.05) 0.85 (0.04) 0.86 (0.06) 0.85 (0.06)
2 0.86 (0.05) 0.88 (0.05) 0.84 (0.05) 0.83 (0.09) 0.85 (0.06) 0.85 (0.06)
3 Validity of BCT identification (PABAK between coders and developer consensus)   0.69 (0.05) 0.69 (0.06) 0.67 (0.05) 0.70 (0.05) 0.67 (0.06) 0.66 (0.06)
1 0.65 (0.03) 0.65 (0.07) 0.66 (0.04) 0.69 (0.05) 0.63 (0.04) 0.61 (0.04)
2 0.72 (0.04) 0.70 (0.05) 0.66 (0.04) 0.72 (0.05) 0.72 (0.03) 0.71 (0.04)
4 Sufficiency of time allocated for task - 5.43 (1.74) 5.56 (1.32) 6.06 (1.43) 4.90 (1.41) 5.36 (1.46) 4.20 (1.90)
Difficulty of writing task - 4.71 (0.73) 4.88 (1.03) 4.72 (1.27) 4.30 (1.22) 5.00 (1.03) 4.80 (0.68)
Paired adjectives
 Difficult vs. easy - 4.25 (0.89) 3.56 (1.32) 4.40 (0.89) 3.75 (1.25) 3.86 (1.41) 3.38 (1.31)
 Worthless vs. useful - 6.50 (0.53) 6.25 (0.93) 6.00 (1.00) 4.70 (2.08) 6.43 (0.65) 6.00 (1.43)
 Bad vs. good - 6.75 (0.46) 6.25 (0.86) 6.00 (0.82) 4.60 (1.98) 6.29 (0.61) 6.41 (1.04)
 Undesirable vs. desirable - 6.50 (0.76) 5.31 (2.00) 6.40 (0.89) 5.85 (1.04) 5.86 (1.29) 6.38 (0.71)
Description will be clear - 5.70 (1.49) 5.20 (1.57) 5.67 (0.52) 5.68 (1.00) 6.21 (0.80) 5.54 (1.35)
Description will be replicable - 5.70 (1.83) 5.07 (1.49) 5.50 (1.05) 5.37 (1.26) 6.07 (0.92) 5.49 (1.30)
  1. For research questions 1 and 2, all items had response options from −3 ‘strongly disagree’ to +3 ‘strongly agree’; for research question 3, all items had response options from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 ‘strongly agree’