A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups

Gustafson, David H.; Shukla, Ramesh K.; Delbecq, André L.; Walster, G. William

doi:10.1016/0030-5073(73)90052-4

Cited by 323 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

159

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Por otro lado, el desarrollo del Delphi exige que el experto domine ciertas habilidades de comunicación escrita, al fundamentarse el proceso en ese tipo de comunicación, por lo que no debe utilizarse con grupos con dificultades en lectura o escritura (Gustafson et al, 1973;Ludwig, 1997). Si bien, es razonable pensar que un experto tenga adecuadas habilidades de comunicación escrita.…”

Section: Selección Y Conformación Del Panel De Expertosunclassified

El Método Delphi en La Investigación Actual en Educación: Una Revisión Teórica Y Metodológica

Gómez

2017

Educación XX1

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Selección Y Conformación Del Panel De Expertosunclassified

El Método Delphi en La Investigación Actual en Educación: Una Revisión Teórica Y Metodológica

Gómez

2017

Educación XX1

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The facilitator ensured that all viewpoints were aired, judgements were backed with data if available, and bias was minimised by selecting the most harmful drug for each effect and making assessments (e.g., by applying the "think, speak, debate" sequence of the nominal group technique (Gustafson et al, 1973), which prevents each participant from anchoring their judgement on that of the first person to speak).Per criterion each expert had first to consider his/her score together with an argument before sharing the score with the group. After sharing the scores and their subsequent justifications the final integral score of the expert group was obtained via consensus.…”

Section: Scoring Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ranking the harm of non-medically used prescription opioids in the UK

Amsterdam

Phillips

Henderson

et al. 2015

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Running head: ranking prescription opioidsKey words: opioids, MCDA, risk assessment, ranking, prescription drugs, harm,street heroin Both forms of heroin scored very high: overall harm score of 99 for injected heroin and 72 for smoked heroin on a scale of 0-100. The main feature that distinguishes both forms of street heroin use is that their harm to others is more than five times that of the other eleven opioids. The overall harm score of fentanyl (including injection of fentanyl extracted from patches) and diamorphine (medically prescribed form of heroin) was 54 and 51, respectively, whereas that of orally used opioids ranged from 32 (pethidine) to 11 (codeine-containing pharmaceuticals).Injected street heroin, fentanyl and diamorphine emerged as most harmful to users, with the latter two very low in harm to others.Pethidine, methadone, morphine and oxycodone are also low in harm to others, while moderate in harm to users.We conclude that the overall harms of non-medically used prescription opioids are less than half that of injected street heroin.These data may give a basis for precautionary regulatory measures that should be considered if the rising trend in non-medical use of prescription opioids were to become evident in the UK.

show abstract

“…To structure discussions and analyses, the group generally recourses to techniques such as Delphi [Linstone and Turoff, 1975], focus group [Basch, 1987], and Estimate-Talk-Estimate [Gustafson et al, 1973]. A weakness of these qualitative techniques is the poor support of computer-based tools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Foresight Support System Using MCDM Methods

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we demonstrate the design and use of a Foresight Support System (FSS) combining two multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Traditionally, foresight activities involves Delphi, focus group, or Estimate-Talk-Estimate techniques to collect opinions of an expert panel. Often, these techniques are not computerized and data visualization is rudimentary. Our highly-interactive FSS solves a number of inherent issues during the data collection, analysis, and results visualization processes. Despite that MCDM methods have been recommended for technology foresight, a validation with a real field experiment was still required. To evaluate our approach and FSS, we conducted a foresight exercise for the Swiss mobile payments market. Our research confirms that the use of MCDM methods supported with a computerized tool can enhance the foresight processes and results.

show abstract

A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups

Cited by 323 publications

References 20 publications

El Método Delphi en La Investigación Actual en Educación: Una Revisión Teórica Y Metodológica

El Método Delphi en La Investigación Actual en Educación: Una Revisión Teórica Y Metodológica

Ranking the harm of non-medically used prescription opioids in the UK

A Foresight Support System Using MCDM Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About