Talk:Transtheoretical model

Reference list
This article has no reference list. It has parenthetical references, but no corresponding reference list. First paragraph has no references at all. 67.68.49.148 02:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the person is following the APA copyedit guidlines. The reference list at the bottom should be  transformed to meet wikistandards.  Sorry, I have an exam tomorrow, on the Stages on Change --Eremgumas (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Permission to edit
This article has several inaccuracies that need to be corrected. It is also missing quite a bit of specific information about this model. I happen to have a PhD in this area. May I go ahead and make the necessary edits?pjj 04:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I really wish you would! IMHO the article is a mess! Beside whatever inaccuracies you refer to there are gaping holes. The article claims that the TTM in soome way assists with change whereas the description of it given in the article simply sets out a temporal mapping of a change process. For instance it states: Progress is made through the stages by implementing a series of 10 processes of change, as first identified by Prochaska (1979) but the stages referred to are not even summarised. Frustrating. LookingGlass 12:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have great respect for the transtheoretical model, but in all fairness, published critiques should be referenced here. This is essential to NPOV. Twenty years after the original research on which it is based, there is a great quantity of literature availble based upon both successful and unsuccessful attempts to apply these principles independent of their original proponents.

The negatives should be reported along with the positives. 24.3.65.68 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Major overhaul
I've spent some time wikifying the article, including changing Harvard-style citations to in-line citations. The only problems are:


 * 1) At least half of the articles cited in the text aren't referenced at the bottom
 * 2) The tone of the article is more suited to an essay or journal article, rather than a Wikipedia article

The combination of these two leads me to believe that at least some of the text may be copyvio, but would certainly need a major rewrite. Not content with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though I shall be moving the current page, complete with my edits, to User talk:Sasuke Sarutobi/Transtheoretical model. This shall be while I:


 * 1) Establish whether or not the article is actually, in whole or in part, plagiarised from elsewhere
 * 2) Create a new article 'from scratch' at the main article page. This shall be clearly adhering to good standards of referencing, originality, tone, and organisation

The 'previous' version (i.e. the version being moved to User talk:Sasuke Sarutobi/Transtheoretical model) will be used as a semi-source in itself, but with the awareness that references may be incorrect. I studied the transtheoretical model at university, so I am fairly familiar with the subject, but I will be awaiting an expert on the subject (and may be looking around for one).

This is the biggest project I've taken on at Wikipedia, so I can't say how long it will take me, but it will probably be spread over at least a week, if not two. If you wish to discuss anything about it with me, please reply here. I will be watching this page, so I will see anything new before I do any work on the pages. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Temporary article was originally part of main namespace; this was pointed out to me as being unsuitable, and was moved to userspace. Links updated to reflect change. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Phew, that gave me a shock finding the original "vanished"! Glad to see it hasn't been junked. Would you include information from this in your makeover: An Empirical Examination of the Stage Theory of Grief Paul K. Maciejewski, PhD; Baohui Zhang, MS; Susan D. Block, MD; Holly G. Prigerson, PhD It can be downloaded here:- http://www.med.yale.edu/womenshealth/pdf/JAMA716.pdf LookingGlass (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI... Prior to 2009 Feb 17, the first section of the article was largely a WP:copyvio from the following article: Jordan PJ, Redding CA, Troop NA, Treasure J, Serpell L. Developing a stage of change measure for assessing recovery from anorexia nervosa. Eat Behav. 2003 Jan;3(4):365-85..  The rest of the article (under "Application to addiction and other health-related behaviors") may or may not have been a copyvio, but had no inline refs. Thanks to Sasuke Sarutobi who blanked and started rewriting the article in 2009 Feb. After that, I substantially rewrote and expanded the article. Hope the current (2009 Mar) article addresses all the issues above (except that the "Stage Theory of Grief" does not relate to the model). — PrevMedFellow (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How the model is implemented
I think it is unfair to attack the model as an ineffective when it is a model to support the clinician, and not an actual treatment. I think the article needs to stress how it is implmented and not focus on criticism of it as being no better than other treatments, when it is not a treatment.

At the end of the day, no valid treatment is all that much better than any other; it's all the same, and placebo tends to be nearly as good as treatment, and a lot cheaper! (Stages of placebo?) --John Bessa (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Termination
Why is Termination not listed under the Stage Details and the Processes of Change sections? jrun (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pov tag
I notice that material has been added today a fair amount of which has been written in the first person plural. Wikipedia does not use its editorial voice in this way. The IP address used for these eadditions resolves to a university associated with one of the principle proponents of the TTM. I am not clear on whether this means that Wikipedia is being used to give an official response or whether someone is being over-enthusiastic in putting their prof's point of view, perhaps even quoting from a source without permission. Having had 2.5 pints (imperial) of Old Rosie I am not in a position to assess further tonight.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing page name to Stages of Change?
I'd like to change the name of this article to Stages of Change because that is the term more commonly referenced and used across the applied psychology community I'm part of. What's involved?


 * I'm also planning to add more about it - how CDC uses it as the basis of their health behavior campaigns, and its role in cognitive behavioral therapy and self-directed behavioral change. Any comments or other suggestions? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMel (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is highly unrecommended to change name to Stages of Change, it would imply a reduction of the model to one of the six theretical constructcs it uses and eliminate any trace of it being transtheoretical. To whoever wished that change, I strongly recommend to first read any version of the book "systems of psychotherapy"(Prochaska et al), where the authors explain the model in much more detail than one could ever be able in a paper. --89.15.157.63 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing process
OK, wtf happen here? a important theory use in multiple region(include medical,biology,socialogy) in this bad shape.... is VERY depression to say this quality of work.

the editing process will take week to finish

lack
--Composcompos12 (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * temple
 * link
 * example
 * imagine
 * fix paragraph error


 * User:Composcompos12: I agree with you that this article is painfully bad. It is so bad that I won't touch it, even though I know a lot about this topic, because the amount of work required to improve it is overwhelming. I appreciate your desire to improve the article, but there are so many errors in your edits that I fear you are only making it worse. Biogeographist (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible rewrite, March 2016
TO ALL WIKI EDITORS: whoever is interested in re'writing this document, please notify it in this page by March 01. I will take the lead to improve it. In order to be sure that an editor knows the model, he must have read a description of it in a book written by the main authors, no third sources. Also, not from scientific papers [even from main authors of the theory], they are not designed to explain theories but to report on experiments or other scientific activities. I recommend [//www.worldcat.org/oclc/29320543 Systems of Psychotherapy] or Changing for Good, both with Prochaska as author, in any version. 89.15.157.63 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to editor 89.15.157.63:
 * 1) If you are going to attempt a major revision to this article, I suggest that you create a Wikipedia user account for yourself. I would find it easier to have conversations with you here on the talk page if I could address you using a username rather than an IP address (especially if your IP address changes). Do not feel pressured to create an account, but consider the benefits of creating an account.
 * 2) If you have not already done so, you will want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before you join your fellow editors in a major revision of the article. It is not clear that you are familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because you have no history of editing from the IP address that you're using. If you have done little or no previous editing on Wikipedia, you may want to practice making minor edits to articles while you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than attempting an ambitious rewrite on a complicated subject without any prior editing experience on Wikipedia. To use an analogy, you don't want to jump into the deep end of the swimming pool only to discover that you don't know how to swim. Many people have tried to edit this article, presumably with good intentions, and many of them have made the article worse, in my opinion.
 * 3) Your insistence on "no third sources" goes directly against Wikipedia policy on third-party sources, which requires articles to be based on more than first-party sources: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I agree that the book Systems of Psychotherapy by Prochaska and Norcross is an important source that should be referenced in this article, but the article must also reference multiple third-party reliable sources. This is necessary to uphold the Wikipedia core content policy of neutral point of view. If this policy is ignored, the article could become a soapbox or means of promotion for a pet theory, which is against Wikipedia policy.
 * 4) Below are a list of some sources on the transtheoretical model (TTM) that I recommend. Of course, many other sources should also be referenced; this is just a subset of potential sources. I consider to be an especially helpful third-party source on the TTM, because Fromme understands the TTM well and he does an excellent job of discussing the TTM in the context of other models such as the systematic treatment selection (STS) model of Larry E. Beutler and colleagues.

Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Biogeographist. I completely agree with you regarding third party references. And please, please, note that I never insisted on "no third sources". I requested that people have read the main authors, because it looks a lot of people made edits without this type of reading. It looks you know the model pretty well. Please let me know how you want to collaborate on this article (i.e. lead, write, edit, review, etc). I just want to make a contribution to wikipedia. I see that several folks have edited and unedited this article to a regressive evolution and WOULD hate to see it again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.9.105 (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello 89.15.9.105: I'm glad to hear that you understand the importance of a wide range of sources; you did in fact exactly say "no third sources" but apparently I misinterpreted what you meant by that phrase.

I know the transtheoretical model well, but I am not very interested in working on this article now, because the amount of time required to transform this mess into a good article is beyond what I am willing to contribute at the moment. I am only giving you advice, some of which you appear to be ignoring (namely, the advice to create a Wikipedia user account for yourself).

Based on my experience editing Wikipedia articles, I would suggest to you that the best way to prevent the "regressive evolution" that you claim to want to prevent is to commit yourself to the task of maintaining the page for a period of time ("at least for a year" is the time period I would suggest, and "indefinitely" is even better). This article is so bad probably because no experienced editors with knowledge of the subject have committed themselves to maintaining the article. All the editors are short-term "drive-by" editors, not long-term committed maintainers. You should ask yourself: "Am I a drive-by editor or am I committed to maintaining the quality of this article?" If you are a short-term drive-by editor, then it's fine to make a few edits from an IP address, as you have just done, but you won't be able to stop the "regressive evolution" of the article that way. If you want to be a long-term committed maintainer of the article, then I suggest that you do the following: I am watching this page, so if you would like to request my opinion on anything, feel free to ask here. Biogeographist (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Create a Wikipedia user account.
 * 2) Learn how to use your watchlist and then add this article to your watchlist, and revert any changes that make the article worse.
 * 3) Read Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * 4) Become an expert on citing sources and especially an expert on: how to use citation templates, how to use the same reference more than once, and how to maintain a consistent article-wide citation style.

I deleted a sentence in my previous comment about the number of edits, which was incorrect. There has been a lot of editing activity on this article, but despite all that activity the article is still a neglected mess. Biogeographist (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Transtheoretical model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601193821/http://www.aishealth.com/Bnow/hbd030609.html to http://www.aishealth.com/Bnow/hbd030609.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602085105/http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Publications/PDFs/ByTitle/The%20Transtheoretical%20model%20of%20Health%20behavior%20change.pdf to http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Publications/PDFs/ByTitle/The%20Transtheoretical%20model%20of%20Health%20behavior%20change.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606231311/http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Publications/PDFs/ByTitle/Stages%20of%20Change%20and%20decisional%20balance%20for.pdf to http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Publications/PDFs/ByTitle/Stages%20of%20Change%20and%20decisional%20balance%20for.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708221157/http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Publications/PDFs/ByTitle/Decisional%20Balance%20measure%20for%20assessing%20and.pdf to http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Publications/PDFs/ByTitle/Decisional%20Balance%20measure%20for%20assessing%20and.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/staff/bridle/download/ttm_interventions_ph_05.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606230344/http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Publications/PDFs/ByTitle/Stages%20and%20Processes%20of%20self%20change.pdf to http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Publications/PDFs/ByTitle/Stages%20and%20Processes%20of%20self%20change.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723150013/http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Publications/PDFs/ByTitle/In%20Search%20of%20How%20People%20Change%20Applications%20to%20Additive%20Behaviors.pdf to http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/Publications/PDFs/ByTitle/In%20Search%20of%20How%20People%20Change%20Applications%20to%20Additive%20Behaviors.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Levels of change
The material added in this edit has two problems: (1) the sentences about levels of change are unsourced; (2) the cited article "A philosophy of health" does not mention TTM. Biogeographist (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
I was surprised by the quote at the end of the intro, because saying it's dominant yet has criticism doesn't say much about actual clinical or scientific validity of a model. So I checked the reference and the quote has been falsified! In the original, it ends with "yet it has simultaneously attracted exceptional criticism" but in the article it ends with "yet it has simultaneously attracted criticism" without any mark of elision. Also, that article says in its results:

The evidence would suggest some flaws in the concept of stages of change as currently articulated in the transtheoretical model. On a conceptual level, even studies incorporating the five stages of change point to a model that better fits Gollwitzer (1993) and Heckhausen's (1991) idea of a motivational phase followed by a volitional phase. Potentially the processes of change components of the transtheoretical model may actually prove the most useful, yet have been under-researched, at least experimentally.

So this seems to be an article that raises a lot of questions about the model's validity yet it is used as if it was mostly supportive in the way it's quoted.

Nowhere man (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the incorrect quotation, which I corrected. It was originally correct, but then a naughty IP editor removed the word "exceptional" in a 2012 edit. We can't modify direct quotations like that, of course, though I agree with the IP editor's apparent sentiment that "exceptional" is an unhelpfully vague/multivalent modifier. I disagree with you that the quote is used as if it was mostly supportive; I think it's a balanced quotation with or without the word "exceptional" (although of course there is no acceptable justification for omitting that word). It's true that the TTM has received a lot of research attention and a lot of criticism. And the author of the quoted article was by no means ready to throw out the TTM; he also wrote: "My argument is simply that there is still value in the transtheoretical model but that the way in which it is researched needs urgently to be addressed." And remember that was written in 2005 [correction: 2009], many years ago. Biogeographist (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If questions were raised in 2005 about TTM's empirical validity and no serious progress has been made since, it would actually mean we have all the less reason to believe TTM is a valid model. Nowhere man (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I misstated the date; the correct citation is Armitage 2009. What makes you think that no serious progress has been made, and what do you mean by "valid model"? (Those are rhetorical questions that you don't have to answer unless you think it will lead to improving the article; remember WP:NOTFORUM.) The issues reviewed by Armitage in 2009 are complex. As Armitage said, models can have various purposes: "to describe, predict, explain and ultimately change health behaviour". There are many parts to the model, some of which have been shown to be better than others for some purposes. The TTM doesn't "explain" anything, for example; that's not what it's designed to do. It has been shown to help (certain subgroups of) people change, so it's not a failed model on that count, which is why Armitage said there was still value in it. The issues are complex and are not satisfactorily summarized by stating that the TTM is or is not a "valid model". Biogeographist (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The model in its entirety has not been shown to be useful, as far as I can tell. Only limited parts of it have seen actual health benefits. So the model is basically a failed model that has shown hints to other possible models that could be useful. The distinction is useful in an encyclopedia article. Nowhere man (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at the chapter on the TTM in the latest edition of the textbook Systems of Psychotherapy: A Transtheoretical Analysis (Prochaska & Norcross, Oxford University Press), which has gone through many editions over decades. There the model in its entirety is used as a conceptual organizing framework for integrating theories of psychotherapy for clinicians. The fact that the textbook has continued to be issued in new editions by a reputable academic publisher makes me doubt your judgment that the model is a total failure. Most of the model (without the "levels of change" dimension, if I remember correctly) is also used in Norcross's self-help book/workbook Changeology, which is intended to be used with various change issues by people who are already at least in the "contemplation" stage of change. Some people might say that the model as presented in those books was useful to them. Others might disagree. I don't know if any studies have been done on users of those books. Without such research I don't see how one could come to an objective pass/fail judgment about the entire model for all possible uses that could be clearly stated in the way you want to state it. We can more objectively say that parts of the model have been shown to useful or not for people facing specific change issues in various trials. And the article already says that in an unfortunately C-class way. Biogeographist (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that people write about the model as a whole. But empirical, clinical experimentation has never validated the model as a whole. Nowhere man (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)