Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 959

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Delphi: A Versatile Methodology for Conducting Qualitative Research

Murry, John W., Hammons, James O.·1995·The Review of Higher Education

Abstract

This article describes the Delphi method, how it is used, its underlying assumptions, its strengths and limitations, its potential benefits to higher education research, and some key considerations in its use. The authors illustrate the Delphi method by discussing a recent national study to develop a set of management audit assessment criteria. Their focus is on often overlooked and unique aspects of this versatile qualitative research methodology.

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 · 10.1353/rhe.1995.0008

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 959

Metadata

Authors
Murry, J. W., & Hammons, J. O.
Venue
The Review of Higher Education
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
1995
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
423-436
ISSN
  • 0162-5748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1090-7009
OpenAlex
W140046518
Cited by
959
References
19
FWCI
8.25
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: Delphi: A Versatile Methodology for Conducting Qualitative Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1353/rhe.1995.0008
The paper
Murry, J. W., & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A Versatile Methodology for Conducting Qualitative Research. The Review of Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1995.0008

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.