Improving the Delphi process: Lessons from social psychological research

Bolger, Fergus; Wright, George

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.07.007

Cited by 148 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, as Goluchowicz & Blind (2011) point out, comments of dissensus in qualitative feedback highlight important issues and provide valuable information (Goluchowicz & Blind, 2011). Many stakeholders provided opinions with strong rationales in the qualitative data that differed from the quantitative consensus, and these opinions were brought back to the panel in Round 2 (Bolger & Wright, 2011). Results for the constructs and components of the revised conceptual framework are discussed, and presented as a revised infographic and extended family members), so it is an accurate term".…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent-to-Parent Support for Parents With Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: A Conceptual Framework

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goals of this project were to: (1) identify the constructs and components of a conceptual framework of parent-to-parent support for parents of children who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH); and (2) invite a panel of international experts to provide personal judgment on the conceptual framework.In a dual-stage scoping review methodology, the first project identified, extracted, and organized data into libraries of thematic and descriptive content. A conceptual framework of parent-to-parent support for parents of children who are D/HH was developed and presented in a comprehensive, bidirectional informational graphic.A modified eDelphi study satisfied the consultation and second stage of the scoping review. Hand-picked experts (from seven countries) with experience in provision, research or experience in the area of parent-to-parent support participated in the revision of the original conceptual framework. KeywordsScoping review, eDelphi, parent-to-parent support, children with hearing loss, deaf or hard of hearing, conceptual framework iii Co-authorship Statement

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent-to-Parent Support for Parents With Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: A Conceptual Framework

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although validation is a critical step for knowledge elicitation, few studies have addressed it. Approaches that improve the rigor of expert judgments include widening the set of experiences and skills that define an expert, employing structured methods to engage with experts, and making experts more accountable through empirical testing of their performance and through training (Cooke 1991, Bolger andWright 2011). Despite these steps, accuracy and validity of expert knowledge must not simply be assumed, but an assessment of absolute or relative validity of expert knowledge should be an important consideration for all studies.…”

Section: Expert Knowledge Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Practicing ecologists who excel at their work (''experts'') hold a wealth of knowledge. This knowledge offers a wide range of opportunities for application in ecological research and natural resource decision-making. While experts are often consulted ad-hoc, their contributions are not widely acknowledged. These informal applications of expert knowledge lead to concerns about a lack of transparency and repeatability, causing distrust of this knowledge source in the scientific community. Here, we address these concerns with an exploration of the diversity of expert knowledge and of rigorous methods in its use. The effective use of expert knowledge hinges on an awareness of the spectrum of experts and their expertise, which varies by breadth of perspective and critical assessment. Also, experts express their knowledge in different forms depending on the degree of contextualization with other information. Careful matching of experts to application is therefore essential and has to go beyond a simple fitting of the expert to the knowledge domain. The standards for the collection and use of expert knowledge should be as rigorous as for empirical data. This involves knowing when it is appropriate to use expert knowledge and how to identify and select suitable experts. Further, it requires a careful plan for the collection, analysis and validation of the knowledge. The knowledge held by expert practitioners is too valuable to be ignored. But only when thorough methods are applied, can the application of expert knowledge be as valid as the use of empirical data. The responsibility for the effective and rigorous use of expert knowledge lies with the researchers.

show abstract

“…It does have, however, some unresolved methodological issues [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. These issues concern, among others, the identification and selection of experts, the organization of feedback, the process of opinion change, and the reliability and validity of Delphi results [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%