IM originated in response to questions by students how to use theory in intervention development. We began to examine programmes developed in our own work and to identify general principles and procedures we used in our development, which led to the stepwise process of conducting a needs assessment, creating matrices of change objectives, selecting theory-based intervention methods, and translating these into practical applications, developing the programme, planning for implementation, and planning for evaluation (Bartholomew et al., 1998 (link)). The description, definitions, parameters, and examples of the behaviour change methods are the product of a process of joint conceptual analysis that was repeated over time with the various editions (Bartholomew et al., 2011 , 2016 ; Bartholomew, Parcel, Kok, & Gottlieb, 2001 , 2006 ). Most of our definitions of intervention methods are directly derived from the theory involved as published in textbooks on theories of (health) behaviour and change or in reviews and meta-analyses. Some of our definitions are based on definitions by others (e.g., Abraham & Michie, 2008 (link)). At two moments we involved colleagues in the field of health promotion and health psychology for consensus building, evaluation, and improvement. Preparing the 2011 editions, we sent our definitions to 50 colleagues. About 40 colleagues responded with suggestions and in Bartholomew et al. (2011 ) we reformulated the definitions. For the current paper we adapted some definitions based on another round of comments from 20 of the same 40 colleagues (Kok et al., 2012 (link)). We do not presume to give the only possible definition; in our consensus studies we noticed that definitions differ among experts. Together with the definitions we provide the parameters for use: the conditions under which the theory-based method will be effective. We also adapted the parameters, based on recent meta-analyses and reviews (e.g. Peters et al., 2013 (link)). These lists of methods and parameters are not to be used as a cook book. The list is meant to stimulate programme planners to judge the evidence to support the potential of the methods on the list to produce change as well as to assure that the parameters, within which particular methods can be expected to work, are considered.