The Utility of the Delphi Method in MFT Research

Abstract

One of the greater criticisms noted in the field of marriage and family therapy (MFT) research is the lack of clear and concise definitions, concepts, and treatment protocols. Given this, the field of MFT would benefit from research methodology to assist in the understanding of areas of previous confusion or dissension. This paper argues for the application of Delphi studies to serve this occasion. A description of the methodology of the Delphi and a discussion of Delphi studies implemented in MFT research literature are presented. Recommendations for the use of the Delphi in the field of MFT are highlighted.One of the greatest criticisms noted in the field of marriage and family therapy (MFT) research is the lack of clear and concise definitions, concepts, and treatment protocols. Pinsof and Wynne (1995) provided an overview, conclusions, and recommendations for the efficacy of MFT research and practice. They concluded that many studies failed to clearly define the problem under investigation. Researchers tended to equate constructs such as marital conflict and marital distress, whereas others considered these as two distinct constructs. Furthermore, little agreement between diagnostic classifications, such as between drug abuse and drug addiction, were noted.The struggles with evaluating the treatment of MFT was another concern noted by Pinsof and Wynne (1995). The problem is identified when looking at therapy "through the lens of the therapeutic approach under investigation and missing critical processes that influence outcome but do not fall with the purview of the approach's theory of the limited categories of the adherence ratings" (p. 606). Although MFT was found to be more beneficial and cost-effective than standard or individual treatments for some problems,

How Can We End the Stigma Surrounding Domestic and Sexual Violence? A Modified Delphi Study with National Advocacy Leaders

“…In Delphi methodology, expert panel members complete multiple rounds of questionnaires, each moving toward consensus (Dawson and Brucker 2001;Jenkins and Smith 1994;Morrow-Howell et al 2005;Murray et al 2010;Stone Fish and Busby 1996;West 2011). Both qualitative and quantitative questionnaires and data analysis procedures are used, and panel members' opinions are valued throughout the study process (Hsu and Sandford 2007;Murray et al 2010;Stone Fish and Busby 1996).…”

Identification of Selection Criteria for Operational Variations of the Design-Build System: A Delphi Study in China / Atrankos Kriterijų Projektavimo Ir Statybos Sistemos Darbiniams Variantams Nustatymas: Delphi Tyrimas Kinijoje

“…The selection of members or panelists is important because the validity of the study is directly related to this selection process. In each Delphi study, the knowledge and expertise of each panelist must be relevant to questions posed by researchers (Dawson, Brucker 2001). In this Delphi survey, the researcher attempts to identify all the panelists who are knowledgeable or have the practical engagement in the DB field.…”

Processes of Metastudy: A Study of Psychosocial Adaptation to Childhood Chronic Health Conditions

“…To increase consistency in reviews, the research assistant and three experienced pediatric qualitative researchers independently reviewed a sample of articles. A 95% agreement rate was achieved in coding, and ultimately, 100% agreement in a coding scheme was achieved through a peer-debriefing Delphi process (Dawson & Bruker, 2001) in which initial differences were examined and recoded. This consensus strategy provided a coding framework for study-by-study review and elicited demographic and sample information, standards of rigor, and substantive findings, as outlined below.…”

“…To identify key criteria for evaluating rigor in the current study, a Delphi panel (Dawson & Bruker, 2001) of experienced qualitative health researchers was established to review the methodological literature and recommend relevant indicators of rigor. Consensus was achieved about key elements to include in this study-by-study review, based on a balance of established elements of trustworthiness and authenticity (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993; Lincoln, 1995; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and a simultaneous avoidance of overly narrow conceptualizations of rigor.…”