Talk:Delphi method

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Delphi method article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Futures studies

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article is imported from Everything2; see their Dephi method page.

Some moved content

@Uclneaxel: Since I'm unsure how this highly detailed sentence which you contributed here fits into the broader context, I'm moving it here for possible comment:

The Delphi approach has been successfully employed to improve agreement between experts in iterative rating exercises on clinical test results using inter-rater kappa statistics as an outcome measure.^[1]

References

^ Petzold A, Biousse V, Bursztyn L, Costello F, Crum A, Digre K, et al. (16 July 2020). "Multirater Validation of Peripapillary Hyperreflective Ovoid Mass-like Structures (PHOMS)". Neuro-Ophthalmology. 44 (6): 413–414. doi:10.1080/01658107.2020.1760891. PMC 7746256. PMID 33408429.

86.161.190.114 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree. Uclneaxel (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RAND/UCLA appropriateness method

The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method is a notable absence under the variations subheading. It is commonly used in medical and clinical research settings with expert panels of specialist physicians.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/10/generating-evidence-using-the-delphi-method.html

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2011/MR1269.pdf Instantwatym (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Petzold A, Biousse V, Bursztyn L, Costello F, Crum A, Digre K, et al. (16 July 2020). "Multirater Validation of Peripapillary Hyperreflective Ovoid Mass-like Structures (PHOMS)". Neuro-Ophthalmology. 44 (6): 413–414. doi:10.1080/01658107.2020.1760891. PMC 7746256. PMID 33408429.

[1]