The iterative development and refinement of health psychology theories through formal, dynamical systems modelling: a scoping review and initial expert-derived ‘best practice’ recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review aimed to synthesise methodological steps taken by researchers in the development of formal, dynamical systems models of health psychology theories. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore in July 2023. We included studies of any design providing that they reported on the development or refinement of a formal, dynamical systems model unfolding at the within-person level, with no restrictions on population or setting. A narrative synthesis with frequency analyses was conducted. A total of 17 modelling projects reported across 29 studies were included. Formal modelling efforts have largely been concentrated to a small number of interdisciplinary teams in the United States (79.3%). The models aimed to better understand dynamic processes (69.0%) or inform the development of adaptive interventions (31.0%). Models typically aimed to formalise the Social Cognitive Theory (31.0%) or the Self-Regulation Theory (17.2%) and varied in complexity (range: 3-30 model components). Only 3.4% of studies reported involving stakeholders in the modelling process and 10.3% drew on Open Science practices. We conclude by proposing an initial set of expert-derived 'best practice' recommendations. Formal, dynamical systems modelling is poised to help health psychologists develop and refine theories, ultimately leading to more potent interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.144 | 0.264 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".