CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

EFTE: An interactive Delphi method

Nelms, Keith R., Porter, Alan L.·1985·Technological Forecasting and Social Change
DOI 10.1016/0040-1625(85)90072-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0040-1625(85)90072-1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The methodology used in the article stems from the Delphi Method's Estimate-Talk-Estimate technique, based on alternating phases of interactive exchange of ideas and envisioning between a group of experts and summarizing key views by facilitators.

    “The methodology used stems from the key ideas and approaches of the Delphi Method, or more precisely from its Estimate-Talk-Estimate technique, based on alternating phases of an interactive exchange of ideas and envisioning between a group of experts and summarizing the key views of the group by facilitators (Nelms 1985;Rowe 1999).”

    From Teaching Archaeological Heritage Management. Towards a Change in Paradigms (2018) · cites this paper as Nelms 1985

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Armstrong, 1983, Relative Accuracy of Judgemental and Extrapolative Methods in Forcasting Annual Earnings, Journal of Forecasting, 2, 437, 10.1002/for.3980020411 · DOI
  2. Best, 1974, An Experiment in Delphi Estimation in Marketing Decision Making, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 447, 10.2307/3151295 · DOI
  3. Brockhaus, 1977, An Analysis of Prior Delphi Applications and Some Observations on its Future Applicability, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 10, 103, 10.1016/0040-1625(77)90010-5 · DOI
  4. Chaffin, 1980, Individual Stability in Delphi Studies, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 16, 67, 10.1016/0040-1625(80)90074-8 · DOI
  5. Coates, 1975, In Defense of Delphi: A Review of “Delphi Assessment: Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process”, 7, 193
  6. Cyphert, 1970, The Delphi Technique: A Tool for Collecting Opinions in Teacher Education, Journal of Teacher Education, 21, 417, 10.1177/002248717002100316 · DOI
  7. Dagenais, 1978, The Reliability and Convergence of the Delphi Technique, The Journal of General Psychology, 98, 307, 10.1080/00221309.1978.9920886 · DOI
  8. Dajani, 1979, Stability and Agreement Criteria for the Termination of Delphi Studies, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 13, 83, 10.1016/0040-1625(79)90007-6 · DOI
  9. Dalkey, 1969, The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion, The Rand Corporation, RM-5888-PR
  10. Dalkey, 1970, The Delphi Method, IV: The Effect of Percentile Feedback and Feed-In of Relevant Facts, The Rand Corporation, RM-6118-PR
  11. Dalkey, 1963, The Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts, Management Science, 9, 458, 10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Dodge, 1977, Research on the Delphi Technique, Educational Technology, 58
  13. Fischer, 1975, An Experimental Study of Four Procedures for Aggregating Subjective Probability Assessments, NTIS, NR 197-029
  14. Fischer, 1981, When Oracles Fail—A Comparison of Four Procedures for Aggregating Subjective Probability Forecasts, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 96, 10.1016/0030-5073(81)90017-9 · DOI
  15. Ford, 1975, Shang Inquiry as an Alternative to Delphi: Some Experimental Findings, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, 139, 10.1016/0040-1625(75)90055-4 · DOI
  16. Goldschmidt, 1975, Scientific Inquiry or Political Critique?: Remarks on “Delphi Assessment, Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process” by H. Sackman, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, 195, 10.1016/0040-1625(75)90059-1 · DOI
  17. Gordon, 1924, Group Judgements in the Field of Lifted Weights, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 398, 10.1037/h0074666 · DOI
  18. Gustafson, 1973, A Comparative Study of Differences in Subjective Likelihood Estimates Made by Individuals, Interacting Groups, Delphi Groups, and Nominal Groups, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 280, 10.1016/0030-5073(73)90052-4 · DOI
  19. Hall, 1963, Group Problem Solving Effectiveness under Conditions of Pooling vs. Interaction, Journal of Social Psychology, 59, 147, 10.1080/00224545.1963.9919420 · DOI
  20. Helmer, 1977, Problems in Futures Research: Delphi and Causal Cross-Impact Analysis, Futures, 17, 10.1016/0016-3287(77)90049-0 · DOI
  21. Hill, 1975, The Methodological Worth of the Delphi Forecasting Technique, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, 179, 10.1016/0040-1625(75)90057-8 · DOI
  22. Hogarth, 1978, A Note on Aggregating Opinions, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 40, 10.1016/0030-5073(78)90037-5 · DOI
  23. Jillson, 1975, Developing Guidelines for the Delphi Method, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, 221, 10.1016/0040-1625(75)90061-X · DOI
  24. Jenness, 1932, The Role of Discussion in Changing Opinion Regarding a Matter of Fact, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 279, 10.1037/h0074620 · DOI
  25. Holloman, 1971, Problem Solving in Different Sized Groups, Personnel Psychology, 24, 489, 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1971.tb00372.x · DOI
  26. Kelley, 1925, The Applicability of the Spearman-Brown Formula for the Measurement of Reliability, Journal of Education Psychology, 16, 300, 10.1037/h0073506 · DOI
  27. Kendall, 1977, Variations of Delphi, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 11, 75, 10.1016/0040-1625(77)90017-8 · DOI
  28. Lewis, 1975, The Effectiveness of Group Brainstorming in Engineering Problem Solving, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-22, 3
  29. Miner, 1979, A Comparative Analysis of Three Diverse Group Decision Making Approaches, Academy of Management Journal, 22, 81, 10.2307/255480 · DOI
  30. Moskowitz, 1979, Validity of the DeGroot Model for Achieving Consensus in Panel and Delphi Groups, Journal of Interdisciplinary Modeling & Simulation, 2, 67
  31. Murnigan, 1981, Group Decision Making: What Strategies Should You Use?, Management Review, 55
  32. Preston, 1938, Note on the Reliability and the Validity of the Group Judgment, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 462, 10.1037/h0058541 · DOI
  33. Rohrbaugh, 1979, Improving the Quality of Group Judgment: Social Judgment Analysis and the Delphi Technique, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 73, 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90017-5 · DOI
  34. Sackman, 1974, Delphi Assessment: Expert Opinion, Forecasting, and Group Process, The Rand Corporation, R-1283-PR
  35. Smith, 1941, the Validity and Reliability of Group Judgment, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 420, 10.1037/h0063151 · DOI
  36. Spinelli, 1983, The Delphi Decision-Making Process, The Journal of Psychology, 113, 75, 10.1080/00223980.1983.9923559 · DOI
  37. Van de Ven, 1974, The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Process, Academy of Management Journal, 17, 605, 10.2307/255641 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Nelms, K. R., & Porter, A. L.
Venue
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1985-08
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
43-61
ISSN
0040-1625
DOI
10.1016/0040-1625(85)90072-1
Cited by
45
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review