Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ‘expert’ within Delphi panel techniques

Baker, John, Lovell, Karina, Harris, Neil·2006·Nurse Researcher

Abstract

The use of the term 'expert' occurs widely in healthcare research, in the context of national guidelines and consensus methods for the development of clinical protocols. Within consensus methods of research, especially Delphi panel techniques, the use of 'experts' is fundamental to reliability. Yet literature fails to debate the practicalities of defining 'experts' for use within Delphi panel research. This paper, by John Baker and colleagues, draws on methodological literature and discusses the concepts and elements of 'experts'. It concludes with recommendations for researchers to ensure experts for future Delphi research.

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 · 10.7748/nr2006.10.14.1.59.c6010

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 398

Metadata

Authors
Baker, J., Lovell, K., & Harris, N.
Venue
Nurse Researcher
Published
2006-10
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
59-70
ISSN
  • 1351-5578 (ISSN-L)
  • 2047-8992
OpenAlex
W2135683387
Cited by
398
References
0
FWCI
13.83
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: How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ‘expert’ within Delphi panel techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7748/nr2006.10.14.1.59.c6010
The paper
Baker, J., Lovell, K., & Harris, N. (2006). How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ‘expert’ within Delphi panel techniques. Nurse Researcher. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2006.10.14.1.59.c6010

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.