CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,789

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis

Rowe, Gene, Wright, George·1999·International Journal of Forecasting
DOI 10.1016/s0169-2070(99)00018-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0169-2070(99)00018-7

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 Rowe 1999

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Armstrong, 1987, Return postage in mail surveys: a meta-analysis, Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 233, 10.1086/269031 · DOI
  2. Ashton, 1986, Combining the judgments of experts: how many and which ones?, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 38, 405, 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90009-9 · DOI
  3. Bardecki, 1984, Participants’ response to the Delphi method: an attitudinal perspective, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 25, 281, 10.1016/0040-1625(84)90006-4 · DOI
  4. Best, 1974, An experiment in Delphi estimation in marketing decision making, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 448, 10.2307/3151295 · DOI
  5. Bolger, 1994, Assessing the quality of expert judgment: issues and analysis, Decision Support Systems, 11, 1, 10.1016/0167-9236(94)90061-2 · DOI
  6. Boje, 1982, Group confidence pressures in iterative decisions, Management Science, 28, 1187, 10.1287/mnsc.28.10.1187 · DOI
  7. Brockhoff, 1984, Forecasting quality and information, Journal of Forecasting, 3, 417, 10.1002/for.3980030405 · DOI
  8. Dagenais, 1978, The reliability and convergence of the Delphi technique, The Journal of General Psychology, 98, 307, 10.1080/00221309.1978.9920886 · DOI
  9. Dalkey, 1970, The Delphi method III: use of self-ratings to improve group estimates, Technological Forecasting, 1, 283, 10.1016/0099-3964(70)90029-3 · DOI
  10. Dalkey, 1963, An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts, Management Science, 9, 458, 10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dietz, 1987, Methods for analyzing data from Delphi panels: some evidence from a forecasting study, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 31, 79, 10.1016/0040-1625(87)90024-2 · DOI
  12. Einhorn, 1977, Quality of group judgment, Psychological Bulletin, 84, 158, 10.1037/0033-2909.84.1.158 · DOI
  13. Erffmeyer, 1986, The Delphi technique: an empirical evaluation of the optimal number of rounds, Group and Organization Studies, 11, 120, 10.1177/105960118601100110 · DOI
  14. Erffmeyer, 1984, Quality and acceptance of an evaluative task: the effects of four group decision-making formats, Group and Organization Studies, 9, 509, 10.1177/105960118400900408 · DOI
  15. Felsenthal, 1976, Experimental evaluation of five designs of redundant organizational systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 474, 10.2307/2391855 · DOI
  16. 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
  17. Gowan, 1993, The efforts of alternative forms of knowledge representation on decision making consensus, International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 38, 489, 10.1006/imms.1993.1023 · DOI
  18. Gustafson, 1973, A comparison 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. 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
  20. Hogarth, 1978, A note on aggregating opinions, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 21, 40, 10.1016/0030-5073(78)90037-5 · DOI
  21. Hornsby, 1994, The impact of decision-making methodology on job evaluation outcomes, Group and Organization Management, 19, 112, 10.1177/1059601194191006 · DOI
  22. Hudak, 1993, Health care administration in the year 2000: practitioners’ views of future issues and job requirements, Hospital and Health Services Administration, 38, 181
  23. Jolson, 1971, The Delphi process in marketing decision making, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 443, 10.2307/3150234 · DOI
  24. Kastein, 1993, Delphi, the issue of reliability: a qualitative Delphi study in primary health care in the Netherlands, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 44, 315, 10.1016/0040-1625(93)90075-I · DOI
  25. Larreché, 1983, Managerial judgment in marketing: the concept of expertise, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 110, 10.2307/3151678 · DOI
  26. Leape, 1992, Small group judgment methods for determining resource based relative values, Medical Care, 30, NS28, 10.1097/00005650-199211001-00003 · DOI
  27. Lunsford, 1993, Marketing business services in central Europe, Journal of Services Marketing, 7, 13, 10.1108/08876049310026060 · DOI
  28. Miner, 1979, A comparative analysis of three diverse group decision making approaches, Academy of Management Journal, 22, 81, 10.2307/255480 · DOI
  29. Myers, 1978, Polarizing effects of social comparisons, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 554, 10.1016/0022-1031(78)90049-5 · DOI
  30. Neiderman, 1991, Information systems management issues for the 1990s, MIS Quarterly, 15, 474
  31. Olshfski, 1991, Assessing training needs of executives using the Delphi technique, Public Productivity and Management Review, 14, 297, 10.2307/3380739 · DOI
  32. Ono, 1994, Assessing the validity of the Delphi technique, Futures, 26, 289, 10.1016/0016-3287(94)90016-7 · DOI
  33. Parenté, 1984, An examination of factors contributing to Delphi accuracy, Journal of Forecasting, 3, 173, 10.1002/for.3980030205 · DOI
  34. Riggs, 1983, The Delphi method: an experimental evaluation, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 89, 10.1016/0040-1625(83)90073-2 · DOI
  35. 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
  36. Rosenthal, 1978, Combining results of independent studies, Psychological Bulletin, 85, 185, 10.1037/0033-2909.85.1.185 · DOI
  37. Rowe, 1996, The impact of task characteristics on the performance of structured group forecasting techniques, International Journal of Forecasting, 12, 73, 10.1016/0169-2070(95)00658-3 · DOI
  38. Rowe, 1991, The Delphi technique: a re-evaluation of research and theory, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39, 235, 10.1016/0040-1625(91)90039-I · DOI
  39. Saito, 1991, Delphi study on bridge condition rating and effects of improvements, Journal of Transport Engineering, 117, 320, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1991)117:3(320) · DOI
  40. Sniezek, 1989, An examination of group process in judgmental forecasting, International Journal of Forecasting, 5, 171, 10.1016/0169-2070(89)90084-8 · DOI
  41. Sniezek, 1990, A comparison of techniques for judgmental forecasting by groups with common information, Group and Organization Studies, 15, 5, 10.1177/105960119001500102 · DOI
  42. Sniezek, 1992, Groups under uncertainty: an examination of confidence in group decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 124, 10.1016/0749-5978(92)90048-C · DOI
  43. Spinelli, 1983, The Delphi decision-making process, Journal of Psychology, 113, 73, 10.1080/00223980.1983.9923559 · DOI
  44. Stewart, 1987, The Delphi technique and judgmental forecasting, Climatic Change, 11, 97, 10.1007/BF00138797 · DOI
  45. Taylor, 1990, A study of survivability and abandonment of contributions in a chain of Delphi rounds, Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 27, 1
  46. Van de Ven, 1974, The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes, Academy of Management Journal, 17, 605, 10.2307/255641 · DOI
  47. Van Dijk, 1990, Delphi questionnaires versus individual and group interviews: a comparison case, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 37, 293, 10.1016/0040-1625(90)90029-U · DOI
  48. Wright, 1996, The role and validity of judgment in forecasting, International Journal of Forecasting, 12, 1, 10.1016/0169-2070(96)00674-7 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rowe, G., & Wright, G.
Venue
International Journal of Forecasting
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-10
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
353-375
ISSN
0169-2070
DOI
10.1016/s0169-2070(99)00018-7
Cited by
1,789
References
3
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