The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is There a Consensus on Consensus Methodology? Descriptions and Recommendations for Future Consensus Research
Abstract
The authors of this article reviewed the methodology of three common consensus methods: nominal group process, consensus development panels, and the Delphi technique. The authors set out to determine how a majority of researchers are conducting these studies, how they are analyzing results, and subsequently the manner in which they are reporting their findings. The authors conclude with a set of guidelines and suggestions designed to aid researchers who choose to use the consensus methodology in their work. Overall, researchers need to describe their inclusion criteria. In addition to this, on the basis of the current literature the authors found that a panel size of 5 to 11 members was most beneficial across all consensus methods described. Lastly, the authors agreed that the statistical analyses done in consensus method studies should be as rigorous as possible and that the predetermined definition of consensus must be included in the ultimate manuscript. More specific recommendations are given for each of the three consensus methods described in the article.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 · Cited by 4,771
The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/pdz9-th90 · Cited by 4,500
Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research
Jones, J., & Hunter, D. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376 · Cited by 3,471
Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use
Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., & Brook, R. H. (1984) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.74.9.979 · Cited by 2,089
Elwyn, G. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.ae · Cited by 1,824
The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/s0169-2070(99)00018-7 · Cited by 1,789
Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences
Landeta, J. (2006) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002 · Cited by 1,353
Management of Spontaneous Pneumothorax
Baumann, M. H., Strange, C., Heffner, J. E., Light, R., Kirby, T. J., Klein, J., Luketich, J. D., Panacek, E. A., & Sahn, S. A. (2001) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.119.2.590 · Cited by 1,264
Managing Delphi Surveys Using Nonparametric Statistical Techniques*
Schmidt, R. C. (1997) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01330.x · Cited by 1,141
The Delphi technique in health sciences education research
de Villiers, M. R., de Villiers, P. J. T., & Kent, A. P. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/13611260500069947 · Cited by 1,006
Cited by
Grindell, C., Coates, E., Croot, L., & O’Cathain, A. (2022) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08079-y · Cited by 409
Chinsky, J. M., Singh, R., Ficicioglu, C., van Karnebeek, C. D. M., Grompe, M., Mitchell, G., Waisbren, S. E., Gucsavas-Calikoglu, M., Wasserstein, M. P., Coakley, K., et al. (2017) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/gim.2017.101 · Cited by 247
Artificial intelligence in medical education curriculum: An e-Delphi study for competencies
Çalışkan, S. A., Demir, K., & Karaca, O. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271872 · Cited by 115
Gallina, A., Disselhorst-Klug, C., Farina, D., Merletti, R., Besomi, M., Holobar, A., Enoka, R. M., Hug, F., Falla, D., Søgaard, K., et al. (2022) · Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology · doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2022.102656 · Cited by 77
The DoCTRINE Guidelines: Defined Criteria To Report INnovations in Education
Blanco, M., Prunuske, J., DiCorcia, M., Learman, L. A., Mutcheson, B., & Huang, G. C. (2022) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004634 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Waggoner, J., Carline, J. D., & Durning, S. J.
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 663-668
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2328814245
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 49.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is There a Consensus on Consensus Methodology? Descriptions and Recommendations for Future Consensus Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/acm.0000000000001092
- The paper
- Waggoner, J., Carline, J. D., & Durning, S. J. (2016). Is There a Consensus on Consensus Methodology? Descriptions and Recommendations for Future Consensus Research. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001092
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
