The Use of the Delphi and Other Consensus Group Methods in Medical Education Research: A Review

Susan M. Humphrey-Murto · Lara Varpio · Timothy J. Wood · Carol Gonsalves · Lee‐Anne Ufholz · Kelly Mascioli +2 more

616 citations0/0 files storedAcademic Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Delphi Technique in Research Innovations in Medical Education Health Education and Validation

Abstract

PURPOSE: Consensus group methods, such as the Delphi method and nominal group technique (NGT), are used to synthesize expert opinions when evidence is lacking. Despite their extensive use, these methods are inconsistently applied. Their use in medical education research has not been well studied. The authors set out to describe the use of consensus methods in medical education research and to assess the reporting quality of these methods and results. METHOD: Using scoping review methods, the authors searched the Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and ERIC databases for 2009-2016. Full-text articles that focused on medical education and the keywords Delphi, RAND, NGT, or other consensus group methods were included. A standardized extraction form was used to collect article demographic data and features reflecting methodological rigor. RESULTS: Of the articles reviewed, 257 met the inclusion criteria. The Modified Delphi (105/257; 40.8%), Delphi (91/257; 35.4%), and NGT (23/257; 8.9%) methods were most often used. The most common study purpose was curriculum development or reform (68/257; 26.5%), assessment tool development (55/257; 21.4%), and defining competencies (43/257; 16.7%). The reporting quality varied, with 70.0% (180/257) of articles reporting a literature review, 27.2% (70/257) reporting what background information was provided to participants, 66.1% (170/257) describing the number of participants, 40.1% (103/257) reporting if private decisions were collected, 37.7% (97/257) reporting if formal feedback of group ratings was shared, and 43.2% (111/257) defining consensus a priori. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus methods are poorly standardized and inconsistently used in medical education research. Improved criteria for reporting are needed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 616 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework 2010Scoping studies: advancing the methodology 2000Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique 2014Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies 1995Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research 2011Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review 1997The Delphi Method?2001A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing

Cited by

2020Consensus in the delphi method: What makes a decision change?2022Reporting guidelines for Delphi techniques in health sciences: A methodological review 2024Delphi studies in social and health sciences—Recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting (DELPHISTAR). Results of a Delphi study 2021Coming to consensus: the Delphi technique 2020Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.