1988
DOI: 10.1177/109821408800900205
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Introducing a Modified Nominal Group Technique for Issue Identification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Suggestions were also incentivised. Group narratives were used in a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) process to generate and classify ideas that were analysed by content analysis (Pokorny, 1988;Yin, 2015). This process provides all members with an equal opportunity to participate and for their input to be considered.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Suggestions were also incentivised. Group narratives were used in a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) process to generate and classify ideas that were analysed by content analysis (Pokorny, 1988;Yin, 2015). This process provides all members with an equal opportunity to participate and for their input to be considered.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study used a mixed‐methods design (Figure 1). Two audio‐recorded expert consultation panels were conducted following the modified nominal group technique (NGT) (Pokorny et al, 1988). The NGT is a structured method for group sessions aimed at reaching consensus (Delbecq et al, 1975).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The NGT is a structured method for group sessions aimed at reaching consensus (Delbecq et al, 1975). The modification of this technique used in this study involved the distribution of background information prior to and between consultation panel rounds as well as the introduction of new participants between rounds (Pokorny et al, 1988). These were followed by a short survey to validate responses from the panels and to provide an opportunity for participants to evaluate and rank recommendations independent of the group.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%