Utility of a Modified Online Delphi Method to Define Workforce Competencies: Lessons from the Intellectual Disability Mental Health Core Competencies Project

Abstract

The Delphi method has been previously used to define and reach consensus on core workforce attributes. However, limitations of the traditional Delphi method have been identified. A modified online Delphi method, which aims to address these limitations, was used as one part of the intellectual disability mental health core competencies project. The authors assess the utility of a modified online Delphi method to define and reach consensus on the core intellectual disability mental health workforce attributes and the lessons learned from using this approach. Thirty‐six intellectual disability mental health experts from across Australia participated in a modified online Delphi. At the end of each Delphi round the research team completed descriptive analyses for the quantitative data, and content and thematic analyses for the qualitative data. The research team subsequently critiqued the method in terms of its utility in defining workforce attributes. Authors identified several lessons from using this method to define core workforce attributes. In particular, it has highlighted the potential benefit of initiating the Delphi process with a developed framework that is familiar to the workforce; the benefit of using quantitative and qualitative methods; and the need to reconsider how to define participant consensus. This study confirmed the utility of a modified online Delphi method to identify and describe core workforce attributes, provided insights into the benefits and challenges of this method, and identified strategies for overcoming some of the commonly documented limitations of the Delphi method. However, it has also highlighted some additional challenges of the Delphi method that researchers have not commonly described within the published literature. The lessons provide useful insights for others planning to use the Delphi method.

Utilizing Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy as a Framework for Addressing Cultural Trauma in African American Children and Adolescents: A Proposal

“…The authors compiled the final list of competencies based on expert consensus. In accordance with other Delphi study practices (Keeney, Hasson, & McKenna, 2011;Weise et al, 2016), consensus was achieved when at least 70% of the experts either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement and the statement's median score was 2.5 or lower. The authors chose to further strengthen consensus results by ensuring that a given statement also achieved an interquartile range (IQR) of less than or equal to 1 (Wester & Borders, 2014).…”

“…An online survey platform was used to collect data. Online survey tools can provide an effective means of conducting Delphi studies (Ross et al, 2014;Weise, Fisher, & Trollor, 2016). Online data collection techniques are economical for researchers and convenient for participants, especially when experts live apart geographically.…”

“…The authors conducted a literature review to compile content statements (Sivell, Lidstone, Taubert, Thompson, & Nelson, 2015) about the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and activities (competency domains) commonly used in CBPR. These content statements were used to create an online questionnaire for the Delphi study's first round (Ross et al, 2014;Sivell et al, 2015;Weise et al, 2016).…”

“…Participants' contributed statements were used to enhance the level of expert consensus with the follow-up questionnaire. The researchers conducted a qualitative content analysis (QCA) for these contributions (Weise et al, 2016). The QCA clearly and systematically categorized statements within the range of the study's nine CBPR principles.…”

Establishing core mental health workforce attributes for the effective mental health care of people with an intellectual disability and co‐occurring mental ill health

“…This method deviated from a traditional Delphi in four ways: (i) it commenced with a proposed framework of attributes, (ii) it ensured complete participant anonymity, (iii) it used less than three rounds of consultation because consensus had been reached after two rounds, and (iv) it was delivered online. A critique of this modified technique confirmed its utility in defining workforce attributes (Weise, Fisher, & Trollor,).…”