Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 520

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Modified Delphi Technique - A Rotational Modification

Open access
Custer, Rodney L., Scarcella, Joseph A., Stewart, Bob R.·1999·Journal of Career and Technical Education

Abstract

This study describes and illustrates a modification of the Delphi technique that was designed to extend its applicability to large competency data sets. The approach consisted of rotating sub-sets of a larger set of competencies through three sub-panels and then examining the viability of the approach. The context of the study was the identification of competencies needed to update training requirements for 21st century plastering contractors. Based on the outcomes of this study, the rotational approach represents a promising mechanism for extending the usefulness of the Delphi tool to larger data sets. The findings also indicate that the factors that erode the validity and usefulness of traditional modified Delphi studies also negatively affect the rotational approach. An obstacle facing many educators has been identifying an appropriate research methodology for developing curriculum when teaching vocational subjects. This is especially true when a research topic is very broad and when new curricular areas are being developed. In such situations there is often a large number of competencies to be evaluated by recognized experts in the content area. A number of techniques have been used that are generally associated with the competency-based approach to curriculum development. These include such tools as occupational analysis, DACUM (Developing a Curriculum), and the Delphi technique ( Finch & Crunkilton, 1989 ; Frykland, 1970 ; Miller, 1990 ; Rothwell & Kazanas, 1992 ). These techniques span a range of approaches from observing workers on the job to conducting meetings with workers to conducting analyses based on work previously conducted on related occupations ( Blank, 1982 ). Each technique has advantages and disadvantages, especially in dealing with diverse groups of experts involving relatively large data sets. This manuscript describes a modification developed for use with the Delphi technique, which was selected for use in a curriculum competency study. The Delphi technique was selected for use in this study due to its ability to obtain expert input from individuals who were widely dispersed geographically. This technique has been used in a number of fields for long-range planning - including education, international affairs, transportation, leisure activities and the like ( McCampbell & Stewart, 1992 ). The Delphi survey technique was developed in the 1950s by two research scientists working at The Rand Corporation, Olaf Helmer and Norman Dalkey. They developed the procedure as a tool for forecasting future events using a series of intensive questionnaires interspersed with controlled-opinion feedback ( Dalkey & Helmer,1993 ; McCampbell & Stewart, 1992 ; Weaver, 1971 ). Participants were solicited experts in the issues related to national defense such as forecasting probable bombing targets the Russian government might choose in the event of an attack on the United States ( Dalkey & Helmer, 1963 ). The Delphi begins with an open-ended questionnaire that is given to a panel of selected experts to solicit specific information about a subject or content area. In subsequent rounds of the procedure, participants rate the relative importance of individual items and also make changes to the phrasing or substance of the items. Through a series of rounds (typically three) the process is designed to yield consensus. The modified Delphi technique is similar to the full Delphi in terms of procedure (i.e., a series of rounds with selected experts) and intent (i.e., to predict future events and to arrive at consensus). The major modification consists of beginning the process with a set of carefully selected items. These pre-selected items may be drawn from various sources including related competency profiles, synthesized reviews of the literature, and interviews with selected content experts. The primary advantages of this modification to the Delphi is that it (a) typically improves the initial round response rate, and (b) provides a solid grounding in previously developed work. Additional advantages related to the use of the modified Delphi technique include reducing the effects of bias due to group interaction, assuring anonymity, and providing controlled feedback to participants ( Dalkey 1972a, 1972b, & Judd 1972 ). Brooks (1979) noted that three mailings are usually sufficient in order to arrive at consensus.

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 · 10.21061/jcte.v15i2.702

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

See all 520

Metadata

Authors
Custer, R. L., Scarcella, J. A., & Stewart, B. R.
Venue
Journal of Career and Technical Education
Published
1999-05-01
Volume
15
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 1531-4952 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-1830
OpenAlex
W158160701
Cited by
520
References
0
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: The Modified Delphi Technique - A Rotational Modification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.21061/jcte.v15i2.702
The paper
Custer, R. L., Scarcella, J. A., & Stewart, B. R. (1999). The Modified Delphi Technique - A Rotational Modification. Journal of Career and Technical Education. https://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v15i2.702

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.