Three experiments (N = 854) examined the effect of a four-step elicitation method used in several expert elicitation studies on judgment accuracy. Participants made judgments about topics that were either searchable or unsearchable online using one of two order variations of the four-step procedure. One group of participants provided their best judgment (one step) prior to constructing an interval (i.e., lower bound, upper bound, and a confidence rating that the correct value fell in the range provided), whereas another group of participants provided their best judgment last after the three-step confidence interval was constructed. The overall effect of this elicitation method was not significant. The accuracy of best estimates was not improved by prior interval construction, and the accuracy of confidence intervals was not affected by elicitation order either. The coherence of participants’ judgments, however, stably predicted more accurate best estimates and also wider credible intervals.