Using the Nominal Group Technique: how to analyse across multiple groups

Abstract

The nominal group technique (NGT) is a method to elicit healthcare priorities. Yet, there is variability on how to conduct the NGT, and limited guidance on how to analyse a diverse sample of multiple groups. This paper addresses some of this ambiguity, and explores whether different approaches to analysis provide the same outcome/s. Conceptual papers and empirical studies were identified via PubMed and informed an adapted version of the NGT. Twenty-six nominal groups were conducted, which provided in-depth knowledge on how to best conduct this method. Pilot group data were used to compare different analysis methods and to explore how this impacted on reported outcomes. Data analyses for large data-sets are complex; thematic analysis is needed to be able to conduct across group comparisons of participant priorities. Consideration should be given not just to the strength, i.e. sum of votes, or relative importance of the priority, but to the voting frequency, i.e. the popularity of the idea amongst participants; our case study demonstrated that this can affect priority rankings for those ideas with the same score. As a case study, this paper provides practical information on analysis for complex data sets. Researchers need to consider more than one analysis process to ensure that the results truly reflect participant priorities. A priority that has a high score may not necessarily reflect its popularity within the group; the voting frequency may also need to be considered

Consumers and Carers Versus Pharmacy Staff: Do Their Priorities for Australian Pharmacy Services Align?

“…how many times a theme appeared in the top five and how often an idea was raised and coded under the same theme, to calculate a combined rank that provided an indication of the relative importance of the theme for the sample overall. The second analysis method was devised by the researchers, which was informed by the literature review [36]. Briefly, the total score (sum of points) for each theme identified by each group was calculated, resulting in a priority list.…”

“…The nominal group technique offers a platform whereby participants are encouraged to share their ideas and vote on their priorities. A literature review was undertaken to explore the application of the nominal group technique and analysis process, thereby informing the development of a framework for facilitators [36]. Although the nominal group process can involve a number of stages, the core process involved silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting/ranking (Table 1) [36].…”

“…A literature review was undertaken to explore the application of the nominal group technique and analysis process, thereby informing the development of a framework for facilitators [36]. Although the nominal group process can involve a number of stages, the core process involved silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting/ranking (Table 1) [36]. For this research, participants were asked to prioritise five ideas of importance to them by allocating a score of 5 (most important) to 1 (least important).…”

“…confirm timing of stages and the number of priorities that minimised participant burden). The pilot groups also provided an opportunity for the four facilitators to familiarise themselves with the nominal group technique [36].…”

Transforming the workplace environment to prevent non-communicable chronic diseases: participatory action research in a South African power plant

“…The CIG then reviewed the strategies that had been attempted to achieve these changes and reflected on which strategies had worked and which had not. Finally, the CIG engaged with a nominal group technique to identify the key lessons learnt and to rank them from most to least important [31,32]. In the nominal group technique each person scored their top five lessons from most important (score = 5) to least important (score = 1).…”