Literature DB >> 12017363

Elicitation of quantitative data from a heterogeneous expert panel: formal process and application in animal health.

Ine H J Van der Fels-Klerx1, Louis H J Goossens, Helmut W Saatkamp, Suzan H S Horst.   

Abstract

This paper presents a protocol for a formal expert judgment process using a heterogeneous expert panel aimed at the quantification of continuous variables. The emphasis is on the process's requirements related to the nature of expertise within the panel, in particular the heterogeneity of both substantive and normative expertise. The process provides the opportunity for interaction among the experts so that they fully understand and agree upon the problem at hand, including qualitative aspects relevant to the variables of interest, prior to the actual quantification task. Individual experts' assessments on the variables of interest, cast in the form of subjective probability density functions, are elicited with a minimal demand for normative expertise. The individual experts' assessments are aggregated into a single probability density function per variable, thereby weighting the experts according to their expertise. Elicitation techniques proposed include the Delphi technique for the qualitative assessment task and the ELI method for the actual quantitative assessment task. Appropriately, the Classical model was used to weight the experts' assessments in order to construct a single distribution per variable. Applying this model, the experts' quality typically was based on their performance on seed variables. An application of the proposed protocol in the broad and multidisciplinary field of animal health is presented. Results of this expert judgment process showed that the proposed protocol in combination with the proposed elicitation and analysis techniques resulted in valid data on the (continuous) variables of interest. In conclusion, the proposed protocol for a formal expert judgment process aimed at the elicitation of quantitative data from a heterogeneous expert panel provided satisfactory results. Hence, this protocol might be useful for expert judgment studies in other broad and/or multidisciplinary fields of interest.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12017363     DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.t01-1-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  6 in total

1.  Simulating pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic fuzzy-parameterized models: a comparison of numerical methods.

Authors:  Kok-Yong Seng; Ivan Nestorov; Paolo Vicini
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  Structuring and validating a cost-effectiveness model of primary asthma prevention amongst children.

Authors:  G Feljandro P Ramos; Sandra Kuiper; Edward Dompeling; Antoinette D I van Asselt; Wim J C de Grauw; J André Knottnerus; Onno C P van Schayck; Tjard R J Schermer; Johan L Severens
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Validation of mouse welfare indicators: a Delphi consultation survey.

Authors:  Ivone Campos-Luna; Amy Miller; Andrew Beard; Matthew Leach
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 4.  A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks.

Authors:  David J Briggs
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2008-11-27       Impact factor: 5.984

5.  Assessing the risk of Nipah virus establishment in Australian flying-foxes.

Authors:  S E Roche; S Costard; J Meers; H E Field; A C Breed
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 4.434

6.  Integrating Expert Knowledge with Data in Bayesian Networks: Preserving Data-Driven Expectations when the Expert Variables Remain Unobserved.

Authors:  Anthony Costa Constantinou; Norman Fenton; Martin Neil
Journal:  Expert Syst Appl       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 6.954

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.