Goal Monitoring: Does Tracking Progress Improve Achievement?
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 10, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Goal monitoring is the deliberate observation and recording of information that shows whether a person is moving toward a chosen objective. Research suggests that tracking progress can improve goal attainment, particularly when the information helps people adjust their actions. The strongest general evidence comes from an experimental meta-analysis of 138 studies involving 19,951 participants: interventions that increased monitoring produced a moderate average improvement in goal attainment, with a standardized effect of d = 0.40. That finding supports tracking as a useful self-regulation strategy, while leaving important questions about the goal, the measure, and the response to feedback. Harkin and colleagues, 2016.
The practical question is therefore how monitoring changes behavior. Counting completed tasks, recording exercise sessions, reviewing test results, or comparing one's current position with a meaningful target may identify a next step. Recording a number alone has less value when the number is unreliable, unrelated to the intended outcome, or used without an opportunity to respond.
For a broader perspective on the psychology of this topic, see Goal-Setting Theory: How Specific Goals Affect Performance.
What Is Goal Monitoring in Psychology?
Goal monitoring refers to attending to, checking, and often recording one's progress relative to a goal or standard. It belongs to the study of self-regulation: people form goals, observe what happens, compare observations with a desired state, and adjust effort, methods, or priorities. A goal supplies direction; monitoring supplies information about how pursuit is unfolding.
Goal setting and goal monitoring are related but distinguishable processes. Someone may set a precise target and never examine progress. Another person may collect extensive data without a clearly chosen target. An effective monitoring practice links an observation to a goal-relevant decision. The broader empirical tradition of goal-setting theory explains why goals and feedback interact, but the detailed theory of goal difficulty belongs to a separate discussion. Locke and Latham, 2002.
A working distinction helps: monitoring asks, “What is happening?”; evaluation asks, “What does that mean for the goal?”; feedback communicates or displays information about the result; and adjustment asks, “What should change next?” These stages may occur within one person, or across an individual and a teacher, coach, clinician, supervisor, or software system.
Progress, performance, behavior, and outcome measures
An outcome measure records a result that ultimately matters, such as completing a project, meeting a proficiency standard, or achieving a health-related target. A behavior measure records an action more directly under a person's control, such as the number of practice sessions completed. An intermediate performance indicator captures the quality or immediate result of a task, such as accuracy on practice questions.
These indicators answer different questions. A writer may count writing sessions, completed draft sections, and successful submissions. All three are relevant, but they are not interchangeable. More sessions may create opportunities for better work without guaranteeing publication; a delayed publication outcome may obscure genuine improvement in work quality.
The distinction is supported by the American Psychological Association's account of the Harkin meta-analysis: prompting people to monitor behavior affected those behaviors, whereas monitoring outcome progress affected outcomes. This finding supports selecting measures that fit the exact change one wants to understand.
Self-monitoring, external monitoring, and feedback
Self-monitoring occurs when people observe and record their own actions or results. External monitoring can be provided by another person, a device, or an organization. Feedback may be continuous, periodic, descriptive, evaluative, comparative, or accompanied by practical guidance.
A step counter can record movement; a teacher can turn a pattern of test results into different practice tasks; a calendar can reveal whether planned sessions occurred. Each system provides information, but each has different accuracy, privacy, and interpretive consequences. Evidence about a particular tracking technology should be applied to comparable uses rather than assumed to cover every monitoring system.
Does Tracking Progress Actually Improve Achievement?
The best direct answer is yes, on average, within the intervention settings studied. In Harkin et al.'s experimental meta-analysis, 138 studies randomly assigned participants to conditions that promoted goal-progress monitoring or a comparison condition. Across 19,951 participants, these interventions substantially increased the frequency of monitoring (d = 1.98, 95% CI 1.71–2.24) and moderately increased goal attainment (d = 0.40, 95% CI 0.32–0.48).
The investigators also reported a statistical mediation pattern: increases in monitoring frequency helped account for the relation between interventions and attainment. The results support the view that encouraging monitoring can change outcomes. They do not show that an extra check produces the same benefit for every person or goal, and mediation within these interventions does not prove that monitoring is the sole active ingredient.
A standardized effect of 0.40 describes an average difference across heterogeneous studies. It is not a 40% increase in the probability of success, a promise of achievement, or a fixed gain for a particular project. Some studies involved health behavior and personal goals, and monitoring was delivered through different intervention formats. Interpretation therefore requires attention to what was measured and what participants could do with the result.
Importantly, the review evaluated interventions intended to increase monitoring. It was not a randomized comparison of every habit app, journal, spreadsheet, and smartwatch currently available. Its central claim is about a strategy—checking progress—and its relationship to attainment, rather than the superiority of any one commercial product.
The most consequential research moderators
Two findings from Harkin et al. were particularly informative. Effects on attainment were larger when monitoring information was physically recorded, and when progress was reported or made public. A written record may make trends easier to inspect, remember, and act on. Reporting can create structure and accountability in some settings.
These are average moderator associations across the included experiments. They do not establish that everyone should disclose private goals, that public accountability always helps, or that paper is inherently more effective than digital recording. Sharing a goal may expose sensitive data or create pressure, and a digital record can be durable and reviewable as well. The evidence supports preserving usable information and creating meaningful opportunities for response.
What later research adds
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis by Krukowski, Denton, and König considered 19 randomized studies with 3,261 participants examining feedback alongside self-monitoring of physical activity, diet, and weight. It found a benefit of feedback in physical activity comparisons, while results concerning delivery format and the origin of feedback were mixed. Most interventions were relatively brief, many studies were at high risk of bias, and the authors could not pool all outcomes. The published article also has a correction; its estimates should be read from the corrected version.
A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis in The BMJ synthesized 121 randomized trials involving 16,743 adults. Interventions with feedback from physical activity monitors improved measured activity, averaging about 1,235 additional steps per day in the main estimate, but certainty for that activity outcome was low and the authors warned about possible publication bias. This is informative evidence for activity monitors, not proof that all goals should be tracked through wearable devices.
The overall pattern is encouraging and differentiated: monitoring plus relevant feedback can help, while the amount of benefit depends on the task, intervention, people, and quality of information.
Why Monitoring Can Change Behavior
Comparison with a meaningful standard
Self-regulatory accounts describe a recurring comparison between the current situation and a reference value. A person notices the discrepancy between current and desired performance, then determines whether to increase effort, change strategy, revise the goal, seek assistance, or stop investing in an unsuitable course of action.
An experimental illustration comes from Bandura and Cervone's research on self-evaluation and self-efficacy. In their study, combining goals with performance feedback had stronger motivational consequences than providing goals or feedback separately. Information becomes more meaningful when a person knows which standard it addresses.
Discrepancy does not automatically lead to more effort. A gap may indicate an ambitious but attainable target, an ineffective method, a constraint on time or resources, or a goal that should be renegotiated. Monitoring contributes to good self-regulation when it supports interpretation instead of reducing everything to a demand to work harder.
Greater visibility of actions and patterns
Memory for repetitive behavior is imprecise. Recording actions can make changes across days or weeks easier to detect: sessions are missed after a particular commitment, errors increase under certain conditions, or a planned routine works only when a specific resource is available.
A record can also help distinguish a temporary disruption from a sustained pattern. However, overly fine-grained tracking may exaggerate ordinary daily variation. For many goals, the relevant unit is a trend over a reasonable interval rather than each fluctuating observation.
Feedback that informs the next decision
Feedback is most useful when it carries task-relevant information. A count can show that performance is below a standard; an explanation can identify the error; and guidance can show how to improve. Wisniewski, Zierer, and Hattie's 2020 educational feedback meta-analysis synthesized 435 studies, reporting an average effect of d = 0.48 with substantial heterogeneity. The informational content of feedback mattered, and effects were generally stronger for cognitive and motor outcomes than for motivational and behavioral outcomes.
In a different synthesis, Brummer and colleagues (2024) examined digitally delivered instructional feedback and found that feedback focus, discipline, assessment type, and learner control helped explain variation. These findings concern learning performance, so they inform how feedback should be designed without supplying a universal estimate for personal goal achievement.
Self-efficacy, interpretation, and persistence
Progress information can contribute to a person's judgments about capability. Evidence of successful action may support confidence, whereas repeated failure without a plausible path forward can undermine it. The interpretation depends on the goal's importance, perceived control, baseline skill, and whether the information points toward improvement.
The psychological mechanism is not simply “seeing a good score makes people work harder.” Monitoring can strengthen commitment, identify obstacles, motivate strategic change, or signal that additional effort is futile. A measurement becomes helpful when the person can use it to regulate action.
Is Positive Feedback Better Than Negative Feedback?
Positive and negative feedback have different meanings depending on what people infer from them. Fishbach, Eyal, and Finkelstein's research review explains how positive information can reinforce a sense of commitment, while negative information can signal that more progress is needed. The motivational effect depends on whether the feedback is read as evidence of commitment or evidence about remaining distance.
Koo and Fishbach (2008) studied how accomplished and unaccomplished goal actions affect motivation. They found that focusing on completed actions can encourage pursuit when commitment is uncertain, whereas focusing on remaining work can encourage it when commitment is established and a lack of progress becomes salient.
Consider two people learning a language. One doubts that sustained learning is possible; seeing completed sessions may affirm that a learning routine has begun. Another is strongly committed and approaching a proficiency examination; identifying remaining weaknesses may guide useful additional study. Neither person benefits from relentlessly emphasizing failure or from a report that conceals real gaps.
For this reason, “always celebrate progress” and “always focus on what remains” are both incomplete rules. The better question is what a person needs to know now to sustain purposeful action and select an effective next step.
When Can Tracking or Feedback Be Counterproductive?
Monitoring can become ineffective when the measure pulls attention away from the actual task, when feedback is threatening or vague, or when a person spends excessive time recording at the expense of performing the behavior.
Kluger and DeNisi's classic meta-analysis of feedback interventions found that feedback improved performance on average but decreased it in more than one-third of the effects examined. This literature concerns feedback interventions broadly, not every form of self-monitoring, yet it provides a decisive warning against assuming that more feedback is automatically better.
A dashboard may reward superficial indicators. A student may focus on the number of pages reviewed while ignoring comprehension. A writer may chase a word count at the expense of revision. An organization may incentivize a target that is easier to measure than the work it actually values. These are measurement-design risks: improving the metric can diverge from achieving the goal.
Excessive checking, pressure, and privacy
High-frequency tracking may become burdensome, especially when monitoring requires lengthy manual entry, constant notifications, or repeated comparisons with unrealistic standards. The appropriate response may be a simpler indicator, a longer review interval, or a different method of feedback.
Making progress public also involves privacy and autonomy. Anonymized, voluntary, purpose-limited accountability can be appropriate in some settings; mandatory disclosure of health, educational, or emotional information raises separate ethical and practical concerns. Evidence that public reporting moderated average effects cannot substitute for consent or contextual judgment.
Tracking weight, food, and exercise: additional care
Self-monitoring used in weight or food-related interventions deserves careful clinical differentiation. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis by Roth and colleagues found no statistically significant overall association between weight-related self-monitoring and a global eating-disorder symptom score in its pooled general-population analysis. The authors nevertheless emphasized that individual factors may determine risk.
This finding neither proves that tracking causes eating disorders nor guarantees that food, weight, or exercise tracking is psychologically suitable for every person. For someone with an eating disorder, compulsive checking, or clinically significant distress linked to measurement, the goals and monitoring plan should be discussed with an appropriately qualified professional. General goal-monitoring advice is not a substitute for specialized care.
How Often Should You Check Goal Progress?
There is no scientifically established universal schedule for every personal goal. The best interval depends on how quickly meaningful changes occur, how costly measurement is, and how often adjustments can realistically influence the result.
A daily check can be sensible for a short, repeatable action such as whether a scheduled practice session occurred. A weekly review may reveal progress on a multipart project more clearly. A quarterly comparison may be more meaningful for a slowly changing outcome. These are examples of matching measurement to the process, not experimentally validated universal frequencies.
One specialized result is instructive. In a 2025 meta-analysis of learning progress monitoring, Fuchs, Radkowitsch, and Sommerhoff synthesized 25 studies involving 7,379 students. The overall effect on reading, writing, and mathematics performance was small and positive (g = 0.30), and stronger effects were associated with teacher support and more frequent monitoring; the authors reported benefits when assessments were administered at least weekly. That frequency result belongs to structured educational assessment and should not be transplanted automatically to health, work, relationships, or private goals.
A defensible principle is to review progress at the frequency at which new information could change a decision. If the data are too noisy to guide action, collect them less often or summarize over longer periods. If a critical bottleneck can be corrected immediately, timely feedback may be more valuable.
Tracking Actions Versus Tracking Results
A single goal can have several levels of indicators. For a project, the final outcome may be completion by an agreed date; near-term progress may be finished components and tested milestones; direct behavior may be periods of focused work.
Tracking actions often provides relatively immediate feedback and supports daily choices. Tracking results prevents a situation in which effort becomes an end in itself. Reviewing both can clarify whether the planned behavior is actually producing the desired change.
The 2009 meta-regression by Michie and colleagues evaluated 122 healthy-eating and physical-activity interventions with 44,747 participants. Self-monitoring accounted for an important share of between-study variability, and interventions combining monitoring with another control-theory-based self-regulatory technique performed better than alternatives on average. Because these comparisons use intervention components across studies, they are informative about combinations rather than proof that one component alone caused all improvements.
A useful review therefore asks two separate questions: “Did I perform the actions that were feasible this period?” and “Are those actions producing the quality or outcome I value?” A person can then change the amount, timing, method, or goal while preserving evidence of what happened.
Does Writing Progress Down Help More Than Thinking About It?
The general goal-monitoring meta-analysis observed stronger effects when progress information was physically recorded. A record can externalize memory, preserve a sequence of observations, and make review easier. Harkin et al. (2016) support recording as a promising ingredient in goal-monitoring interventions.
That result does not establish a hierarchy of paper notebook over spreadsheet over app. “Recorded” describes a functional property of the intervention, while technologies vary in convenience, reliability, accessibility, reminders, and burden. Choose a medium that allows easy entry and honest review.
The minimum useful record may be a date, the indicator, and one sentence about the next action. For complex work, more detailed notes can be justified if the additional information informs decisions. The aim is a usable history, not the largest possible collection of data.
Do Progress Bars, Streaks, Apps, and Wearables Work?
Digital tools can lower the cost of recording and display trends. Reminders and visualizations may support awareness; they can also generate notification fatigue or pressure to preserve a streak that has lost its connection to the original goal.
For physical activity specifically, a 2022 umbrella review by Ferguson and colleagues included 39 systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting on 163,992 participants and concluded that activity trackers increased physical activity on average. The estimate and underlying interventions concern physical activity, not motivation in general or all categories of consumer apps.
Progress bars communicate proximity to a target but cannot judge whether the target is valuable. Streaks record repeated compliance with a rule but do not necessarily capture the quality of learning, the sustainability of a behavior, or the wisdom of taking a restorative break. A graph can be informative only insofar as its data are accurate and its chosen indicator matches the intended outcome.
Research on algorithmically generated feedback remains developing. The Krukowski et al. (2024) review compared feedback formats and sources in health behavior interventions and found mixed evidence about which presentation or generator was superior. Claims that an AI coach, automated dashboard, or specific app is more effective than a human review require product- and population-specific trials.
Does Accountability Improve Goal Achievement?
Some interventions involve reporting progress to a partner, group, coach, teacher, or professional. The Harkin meta-analysis found larger average effects on attainment when progress was reported or made public. That finding suggests that externalizing progress can matter.
Accountability works best when the person understands the purpose of reporting and can receive or use constructive feedback. The same practice can create anxiety, performative reporting, or distorted numbers when goals are coercive or social comparison becomes dominant. The privacy and relationship context therefore matter as much as the mechanics of sharing.
A simple private review or a voluntary check-in can be preferable when performance data are sensitive. Reporting should clarify progress and support action rather than create an independent obligation to look successful.
How to Build an Evidence-Informed Goal Monitoring Practice
Start by expressing the outcome in observable terms. Clarify what would constitute meaningful progress and over what period that progress could realistically occur. For an ongoing responsibility, a quality standard or sustainable pattern may be more useful than a single endpoint.
Then select one or two indicators connected to that outcome. Combine a behavior indicator that is responsive to short-term action with an outcome or quality indicator that tests whether the behavior is effective. Avoid collecting metrics simply because a device can measure them.
Establish a reasonable starting point. A first observation provides context for later comparisons and prevents a goal from being evaluated against assumptions rather than actual conditions. An initial baseline is a practical design choice; it should be revised when circumstances or measures change.
Decide how frequently to record and review. A quick observation might occur after each relevant action, whereas interpretation might occur weekly. Separate logging from decision-making: continual checks can interrupt work, while a designated review can protect time for concentrated effort.
At each review, ask whether the current plan is generating progress, what obstacles appeared, and which one adjustment would be most informative. Specific action plans can complement monitoring. A broad research synthesis by Gollwitzer and Sheeran38002-1) supports implementation intentions—plans connecting a situational cue to an intended behavior—but planning and monitoring remain separate strategies.
If progress improves, retain the method and consider whether the indicators still capture what matters. If progress stalls, examine task difficulty, resources, competing commitments, fatigue, feedback quality, and goal relevance before assigning the outcome to a supposed lack of willpower.
Revisit the goal itself. Sometimes the most informed decision is to modify a deadline, reduce scope, seek collaboration, or disengage from an unsuitable goal. Monitoring supports autonomy when evidence contributes to a choice rather than enforcing a target indefinitely.
Finally, limit tracking to information whose usefulness exceeds its cost. A workable system is one that a person can maintain without allowing measurement to dominate the activity being measured.
Example: monitoring progress toward writing a research paper
A researcher may define the outcome as a complete, accurate manuscript ready for internal review. A behavior indicator could be protected writing sessions; process indicators could include an evidence map and completed sections; quality indicators could include whether arguments are supported and revisions resolve substantive comments.
A weekly review might reveal that scheduled sessions occurred but references remain unverified. The next step would be to adjust the workflow toward source checking, rather than add more writing hours. If the same document repeatedly stalls at a particular section, reviewing its conceptual difficulty may be more useful than increasing the daily word target.
This example illustrates a general design principle: monitoring should help distinguish effort, meaningful progress, and finished quality. It does not predict any particular individual's publication success.
Example: monitoring a learning goal
A learner may track practice sessions while periodically testing performance on novel problems. Session counts show participation; performance on new items offers information about transfer and comprehension. Repeated practice scores from memorized items may overstate general learning.
Research on learning-progress monitoring and instructional feedback indicates the value of usable performance data accompanied by appropriate adjustment of teaching or practice. Fuchs et al. (2025) specifically highlight teacher support, while Wisniewski et al. (2020) emphasize variation in the informational content of feedback. These education-specific findings should guide educational decisions without being treated as rules for every domain.
Why Monitoring Sometimes Fails to Change Results
The measure may be weak. A count of activity can fail to capture competence, quality, or actual impact. In that case, apparent progress can be a measurement artifact.
The person may have no room to act. Information about a barrier helps little when the time, resources, skills, accommodations, or institutional permissions necessary to change course are absent. A monitoring intervention cannot remove every structural constraint.
The information may arrive too late. By the time a yearly metric changes, many decisions may already be fixed. Conversely, instantaneous metrics can be noisy, shifting attention toward random variation.
The goal may conflict with other important goals. Tracking progress toward one objective does not automatically settle competing demands on rest, care responsibilities, relationships, or financial security. Such tradeoffs require prioritization as well as measurement.
Finally, a person can interpret data in a way that produces discouragement or unwarranted reassurance. The Fishbach, Eyal, and Finkelstein review describes why positive and negative feedback have different motivational meanings. Recording accurate numbers is only one part of the self-regulatory process.
Scientific Limitations and Open Questions
The main experimental evidence pools diverse goals and interventions. An average effect establishes a broad pattern, while the most effective implementation for a particular population remains uncertain. Study length, intervention combinations, measurement validity, and how achievement was operationalized all affect interpretation.
Evidence from physical activity trackers, food diaries, workplace performance systems, and school assessment can provide contextual examples but cannot be converted into a single universal rule. A significant effect on activity frequency is also distinct from improvement in health, well-being, learning, or long-term life outcomes.
Long-term sustainability is another question. Maintaining a record over months or years can be easy for some goals and burdensome for others. More studies that isolate monitoring from reminders, incentives, coaching, and feedback would clarify which elements create lasting benefits.
Additional research is needed on equitable access, disability accommodations, privacy, automated feedback, and the consequences of surveillance in settings with unequal power. These are genuine design questions, not reasons to disregard the experimental evidence in favor of broad slogans.
Goal Monitoring and Mental Health: A Clinical Boundary
Difficulties initiating action, sustaining attention, or keeping records may occur in ordinary life and across many circumstances. A missed tracking session is not a diagnosis, and a productivity score cannot determine whether someone has ADHD, depression, an anxiety disorder, or another clinical condition.
Changes in mood, attention, energy, or daily functioning require interpretation within a broader context when clinically significant. A goal tracker can support organization for some people, but it does not assess a psychiatric disorder and does not replace clinical evaluation. Someone whose monitoring practices provoke substantial distress or compulsive checking can seek individualized guidance about a safer approach.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does tracking goals make you more likely to succeed?
On average, experimental interventions that increased goal-progress monitoring also improved goal attainment. The strongest broad meta-analysis reported d = 0.40 across 138 studies. It does not imply the same effect for every goal, person, or method. Harkin et al. (2016).
What is the difference between tracking goals and tracking habits?
Goal tracking checks movement toward a desired outcome or standard. Habit tracking typically records repetition of an action, sometimes in a stable context. A habit checklist can be one input to goal monitoring, but repetition alone does not establish that an outcome has improved.
Is daily tracking better than weekly tracking?
Neither interval is universally superior. Daily records suit quickly repeated behaviors, whereas weekly or less frequent reviews may suit noisy or slowly changing results. The interval should match when informative change can be detected and acted on. Research on weekly learning-progress assessments is specific to education, not an all-purpose rule. Fuchs et al. (2025).
Should I focus on how far I have come or how far I have left?
Both frames can be useful. Completed actions may reinforce commitment, while remaining work may prompt additional effort when the goal is already firmly accepted. The effects depend on interpretation and context. Koo and Fishbach (2008).
Do you need an app to monitor a goal?
No. A notebook, a checklist, a brief recurring review, or a reliable digital record can all provide information. The evidence does not establish a universal winner among recording media. Choose the format that reliably connects observations with decisions.
Does sharing progress with other people help?
The main experimental meta-analysis found larger average effects when progress was reported or made public. Whether sharing is appropriate depends on consent, psychological safety, the sensitivity of the information, and whether the interaction supports useful feedback. Harkin et al. (2016).
Can progress tracking reduce motivation?
It can in some circumstances, particularly when feedback misdirects attention, measures the wrong target, or is experienced as excessive pressure. A broad feedback meta-analysis found that a substantial minority of interventions worsened performance. This finding argues for useful, specific, humane feedback rather than constant scoring. Kluger and DeNisi (1996).
Are progress bars and streaks scientifically proven to improve every goal?
No. Evidence for goal monitoring and evidence for wearable physical-activity feedback cannot establish universal effects for every interface feature, product, or task. A streak indicates repeated compliance with a rule; its value depends on what the rule measures and whether it serves the intended outcome.
How can I tell whether a tracking metric is useful?
A useful metric is sufficiently reliable, relevant to the actual goal, understandable, and connected to an action you can take. If the score rises while quality or meaningful outcomes worsen, revisit the metric rather than assuming achievement.
Can tracking identify depression or ADHD?
No. Self-recorded goal progress is a behavior or outcome measure, not a diagnostic procedure. Clinical questions require assessment of symptoms, duration, impairment, and alternative explanations by qualified professionals.
Related Articles
For the broader relationship among motivation, learned behaviors, goals, and self-control, see Motivation, Habits, and Self-Control: Psychology of Behavior Change.
For methods of choosing and sustaining workable objectives, see How to Set Goals You Can Actually Follow Through On. For the complementary strategy of anticipating opportunities for action, see Implementation Intentions: How If-Then Planning Helps Achieve Goals.
For a different question about personal agency in technology-mediated work, see Motivation in the Age of AI: Effort, Goals, Self-Efficacy, and Human Agency.
For the psychology of deciding when to persist, revise, or disengage from a personal objective, see Why People Give Up on Goals: Persistence, Disengagement, and Recovery.
References
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017
Brummer, L., de Boer, H., Mouw, J. M., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2024). A meta-analysis of the effects of context, content, and task factors of digitally delivered instructional feedback on learning performance. Learning Environments Research, 27, 453–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-024-09501-4
Ferguson, T., Olds, T., Curtis, R., et al. (2022). Effectiveness of wearable activity trackers to increase physical activity and improve health: A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Lancet Digital Health, 4(8), e615–e626. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35868813/
Fishbach, A., Eyal, T., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2010). How positive and negative feedback motivate goal pursuit. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00285.x
Fuchs, A., Radkowitsch, A., & Sommerhoff, D. (2025). Using learning progress monitoring to promote academic performance? A meta-analysis of the effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 46, 100648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100648
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-138002-1)
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., et al. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198–229. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26479070/
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 183–195. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18211171/
Krukowski, R. A., Denton, A. H., & König, L. M. (2024). Impact of feedback generation and presentation on self-monitoring behaviors, dietary intake, physical activity, and weight: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 21, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-023-01555-6
Larsen, R. T., Wagner, V., Korfitsen, C. B., et al. (2022). Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 376, e068047. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068047
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12237980/
Michie, S., Abraham, C., Whittington, C., McAteer, J., & Gupta, S. (2009). Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: A meta-regression. Health Psychology, 28(6), 690–701. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19916637/
Roth, A. M., Gruber, J. R., Reif, A., Schultze, M., & Matura, S. (2024). Exploring weight-related self-monitoring as a potential risk factor for eating disorder symptoms in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Appetite, 202, 107610. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39069082/
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32038429/