MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887559973 · doi:10.1037/mot0000172

A classification of motivation and behavior change techniques used in self-determination theory-based interventions in health contexts.

2020· article· en· W2887559973 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro J. Teixeira, Marta M. Marques, Marlene N. Silva, Jennifer Brunet, Joan L. Duda, Leen Haerens, Jennifer G. La Guardia, Magnus Lindwall, Chris Lonsdale, David Markland, Susan Michie, Arlen C. Moller, Nikos Ntoumanis, Heather Patrick, Johnmarshall Reeve, Richard M. Ryan, Simon J. Sebire, Martyn Standage, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Netta Weinstein, Karin Weman Josefsson, Geoffrey C. Williams, Martin S. Hagger

Bibliographic record

VenueMotivation Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersBusiness Finland
KeywordsPsychological interventionCompetence (human resources)PsychologyAutonomySelf-determination theoryComputer scienceManagement scienceSocial psychologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While evidence suggests that interventions based on self-determination theory have efficacy in
\nmotivating adoption and maintenance of health-related behaviors, and in promoting adaptive
\npsychological outcomes, the motivational techniques that comprise the content of these
\ninterventions have not been comprehensively identified or described. The aim of the present
\nstudy was to develop a classification system of the techniques that comprise self-determination
\ntheory interventions, with satisfaction of psychological needs as an organizing principle.
\nCandidate techniques were identified through a comprehensive review of self-determination
\ntheory interventions and nomination by experts. The study team developed a preliminary list of
\ncandidate techniques accompanied by labels, definitions, and function descriptions of each.
\nEach technique was aligned with the most closely-related psychological need satisfaction
\nconstruct (autonomy, competence, or relatedness). Using an iterative expert consensus
\nprocedure, participating experts (N=18) judged each technique on the preliminary list for
\nredundancy, essentiality, uniqueness, and the proposed link between the technique and basic
\npsychological need. The procedure produced a final classification of 21 motivation and
\nbehavior change techniques (MBCTs). Redundancies between final MBCTs against techniques
\nfrom existing behavior change technique taxonomies were also checked. The classification
\nsystem is the first formal attempt to systematize self-determination theory intervention
\ntechniques. The classification is expected to enhance consistency in descriptions of selfdetermination theory-based interventions in health contexts, and assist in facilitating synthesis
\nof evidence on interventions based on the theory. The classification is also expected to guide
\nfuture efforts to identify, describe, and classify the techniques that comprise self-determination
\ntheory-based interventions in multiple domains.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations511
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMotivation ScienceSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207