The Delphi technique in curriculum development

Stritter, Frank T.; Tresolini, Carol P.; Reeb, Kenneth G.

doi:10.1080/10401339409539662

Cited by 25 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They are based on the premise that individual statistical predictions are stronger than unstructured, face-to-face group predictions (Keeney et al, 2011). Subsequently, they have been used in a variety of situations, especially in the healthcare professions have been employed to establish consensus in a variety of areas of emergency medicine (Kilroy and Driscoll, 2006;Kilroy and Mooney, 2007;Penciner et al, 2011), in nursing education (McKenna, 1994;Williams and Webb, 1994;Sumsion, 1998;Keeney et al, 2011), to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria (Graham et al, 2003), in GP information requirements (Green et al, 1999), for identifying applicable skills, attitudes, and practices in clinical teachers (Yeates et al, 2008), in curriculum development (Stritter et al, 1994) and musculoskeletal anatomy of physical medicine and rehabilitation residents (Lisk et al, 2014). Delphi procedures can be used to arrive at consensus on an issue or they can be used as a survey technique.…”

Section: Delphi Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An approach toward the development of core syllabuses for the anatomical sciences

Moxham

Plaisant

Smith

et al. 2014

Anatomical Sciences Ed

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increasingly a call for clinical relevance in the teaching of the biomedical sciences within all health care programs. This presupposes that there is an understanding of what is "core" material within the curriculum. To date, the anatomical sciences have been poorly served by the development of core syllabuses, although there have been commendable attempts to define a core syllabus for gross anatomy in medicine and for some medical specialties. The International Federation of Associations of Anatomists and the European Federation for Experimental Morphology aim to formulate, on an international basis, core syllabuses for all branches of the anatomical sciences. This is being undertaken at the initial stage using Delphi Panels consisting of a team of anatomists, scientists, and clinicians who evaluate syllabus content and accord each element/topic "essential," "important," "acceptable," or "not required" status. Their initial conjectures, published on the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists' website, provide merely a framework to enable anatomical (and other cognate learned) societies and individual anatomists, clinicians, and students to comment upon the syllabuses. This article presents the concepts and methodological approaches underlying the hybrid Delphi process employed. Preliminary findings relating to the development of a neuroanatomy core syllabus are provided to illustrate the methods initially employed by a Delphi Panel. The approach is novel in that it is international in scope, is conceptually democratic, and is developmentally fluid in terms of availability for amendment. The aim is to set internationally recognized standards and thus to provide guidelines concerning anatomical knowledge when engaged in course development.

show abstract

Section: Delphi Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An approach toward the development of core syllabuses for the anatomical sciences

Moxham

Plaisant

Smith

et al. 2014

Anatomical Sciences Ed

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[3][4][5][6] The Delphi method is a structured and interactive communication technique that surveys a panel of experts in a systematic manner. [3][4][5][6] The Delphi method is a structured and interactive communication technique that surveys a panel of experts in a systematic manner.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunology for Rheumatology Residents

Chow¹,

Herman-Kideckel²,

Mahendira³

et al. 2015

JCR Journal of Clinical Rheumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[16][17][18][19][20][21] This involved asking participants to answer a series of questionnaires in successive rounds to identify, clarify, refine and eventually reach consensus on the curriculum content and appropriate assessment methods. A total of 21 participants were invited to take part including two service users, two DFFP trainees, 12 family planning doctors and three nurses, one medical education specialist and one ethical adviser.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%