Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 808

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Nominal group technique: An effective method for obtaining group consensus

Harvey, Nichole, Holmes, Colin A·2012·International Journal of Nursing Practice
DOI 10.1111/j.1440-172x.2012.02017.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Harvey N, Holmes CA. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2012; 18: 188–194 Nominal group technique: An effective method for obtaining group consensus This paper aims to demonstrate the versatility and application of nominal group technique as a method for generating priority information. Nominal group technique was used in the context of four focus groups involving clinical experts from the emergency department (ED) and obstetric and midwifery areas of a busy regional hospital to assess the triage and management of pregnant women in the ED. The data generated were used to create a priority list of discussion triggers for the subsequent Participatory Action Research Group. This technique proved to be a productive and efficient data collection method which produced information in a hierarchy of perceived importance and identified real world problems. This information was vital in initiating the participatory action research project and is recommended as an effective and reliable data collection method, especially when undertaking research with clinical experts.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1440-172x.2012.02017.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Harvey, N., & Holmes, C. A.
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-21
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
188-194
ISSN
  • 1322-7114 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-172X
DOI
10.1111/j.1440-172x.2012.02017.x
OpenAlex
W1918280324
Cited by
808
References
0
FWCI
43.35
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

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.