Delphi techniques to find consensus in the health sciences. A methodological reflection (DEFLEX)

德尔菲技术在健康科学领域达成共识。

• 批准号: 516628412
• 负责人: Professorin Dr. Marlen Niederberger
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Institut für Humanwissenschaften
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Grants
• 资助国家: 德国
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/516628412?language=en
• 关键词: Delphi; techniques; find; consensus; health

Delphi techniques are used in the health sciences especially to find consensus. However, studies show, among other things, that there are many diffuse modifications and statistical errors in analyses. This project aims to improve how Delphi procedures are conducted and the quality of the data when these techniques are used to find consensus. Three factors are examined, which, according to the current research, have an influence on judgment formation and consensus building. These factors include expert panel composition, survey design, and how feedback is given. Each of these factors is looked at over the course of different Delphi rounds. While doing so, attention is paid not only to the current changes to Delphi techniques, but also to general methodological debates about the participation of affected groups, the combination of qualitative and quantitative data, and the particular aspects of online surveys in the analyses. On a level above this, two research questions are pursued: 1. Analysis of factors that influence consensus finding: Behind this is the assumption that, in addition to subject matter and content-related aspects, there are also personal, methodical or pragmatic research factors that influence the motivation to participate and the intellectually demanding process of forming judgments, which then also influence consensus finding. For this reason, the practice of using Delphi procedures in research and judgment behavior are analyzed, including over multiple Delphi rounds. According to the optimizing-satisficing theory, it is argued that psychologically the respondents in Delphi procedures have a high degree of willingness, due to their professional interests, to intellectually grapple with the questions and issues in order to arrive at a well-founded and "optimal" judgment. To do this, they draw upon their own expertise and experience while also considering the feedback from previous Delphi rounds and knowledge from external sources. The analysis of these influencing factors is carried out quantitatively, qualitatively and experimentally. 2. Formulating methodical quality standards and guidelines for conducting Delphi procedures to find consensus, which are evaluated by the international Delphi-experts. The methodical approach is complex and pluralistic in design. To analyze the judgment behavior of experts, a systematic review, a scoping review, cognitive expert interviews, an experiment, an evaluation of Delphi procedures, and a secondary analysis of completed Delphi studies will be applied. This collection of evidence aims at formulating initial recommendations for quality standards and guidelines for Delphi procedures. These proposed recommendations will then be evaluated in a separate Delphi study with internationally regarded Delphi experts.

德尔菲技术在健康科学中特别用于寻求共识。然而，研究表明，除其他外，在分析中存在许多分散的修改和统计错误。该项目旨在改进德尔菲程序的实施方式，以及在使用这些技术寻找共识时数据的质量。根据目前的研究，本文考察了影响判断形成和共识建立的三个因素。这些因素包括专家小组组成、调查设计以及如何给出反馈。这些因素中的每一个都是在不同的德尔菲轮次中考虑的。在此过程中，不仅关注德尔菲技术的当前变化，还关注关于受影响群体参与的一般方法辩论，定性和定量数据的结合，以及分析中在线调查的特定方面。在此之上的层面上，我们追求两个研究问题：1。影响共识发现的因素分析：这背后的假设是，除了主题和内容相关方面之外，还有个人的、系统的或实用的研究因素影响参与的动机和形成判断的智力要求过程，这些因素也影响共识发现。因此，本文分析了在研究和判断行为中使用德尔菲程序的实践，包括多次德尔菲回合。根据优化满足理论，在德尔菲程序中，由于他们的专业兴趣，被调查者在心理上有很高的意愿去理性地解决问题和问题，以达到一个有充分根据的“最佳”判断。为了做到这一点，他们利用自己的专业知识和经验，同时也考虑到以前的德尔福回合的反馈和外部资源的知识。对这些影响因素进行了定量、定性和实验分析。2. 制定有条理的质量标准和指导方针进行德尔菲程序，以找到共识，这是由国际德尔菲专家评估。系统的方法在设计上是复杂和多元的。为了分析专家的判断行为，将采用系统评价、范围评价、认知专家访谈、实验、德尔菲程序评价以及对已完成的德尔菲研究的二次分析。收集证据的目的是为德尔菲程序的质量标准和指导方针制定初步建议。这些建议将在一个独立的德尔福研究中与国际公认的德尔福专家进行评估。