Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups☆
References (30)
Individual versus group problem solving in an industrial sample
Journal of Applied Psychology
(1968)Individual versus group problem solving in an industrial sample
Journal of Applied Psychology
(1968)Group problem solving
Applied imagination
(1957)The design of a policy Delphi
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(1970)- et al.
Group decision making under risk of aversive consequences
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1965) - et al.
Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups
Journal of Applied Psychology
(1969)et al.Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups
Journal of Applied Psychology
(1969) - et al.
An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts
Management Science
(1963) Experimental studies of the influence of social situations on the behavior of individual human adults
- Daves, O. L. Design and analysis of industrial experiments. New York: Hafner Publishing...
- et al.
A group process model for problem identification and program planning
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
(1971)
Are meetings any good for solving problems?
The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for two industrial samples
Journal of Applied Psychology
The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for two industrial samples
Journal of Applied Psychology
Probabilistic information processing systems: design and evaluation
IEEE Transactions: Systems and Cybernetics
Risky decisions by individuals and groups
Group problem-solving effectiveness under conditions of pooling vs. interaction
Journal of Social Psychology
Cited by (251)
Extended half-life recombinant factor VIII treatment of hemophilia A in Brazil: an expert consensus statement
2024, Hematology, Transfusion and Cell TherapyCitation Excerpt :Subsequently, participants could see the group's answers in the previous round.17,18 The third and final round is a face-to-face meeting,19 that allows interaction between the panelists, to discuss and give further information to sustain their opinions.20 In the first and second rounds, participants answered an online questionnaire on the MS Forms® platform.
Clinical guidance for e-cigarette (vaping) cessation: Results from a modified Delphi panel approach
2023, Preventive Medicine ReportsThe expected speed and impacts of vehicle automation in passenger and freight transport: A Dissensus Delphi study among UK professionals
2023, Research in Transportation Business and ManagementAchieving consensus on the language of obesity: a modified Delphi study
2023, eClinicalMedicineMatching BRCA and prostate cancer in a public health system: Report of the Italian Society for Uro-Oncology (SIUrO) consensus project
2023, Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
- ☆
The study is part of the Computer-Aided Medical Diagnosis Project at the University of Wisconsin. The purpose of the project is to develop and evaluate a computer-aided diagnostic system using subjective likelihood ratios estimated by physicians (rather than actuarial likelihoods estimated by empirical data) in a Bayesian diagnostic model. This particular study was important to the project because it became the basis for selecting a group process that would effectively aggregate the knowledge of the physician's community. Much concern has recently been evidenced concerning the role of consensus and subjective information (Winkler, 1968; Goodman, 1970).