↓ Skip to main content

Proposal for a Five-Step Method to Elicit Expert Judgment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Proposal for a Five-Step Method to Elicit Expert Judgment
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Duco Veen, Diederick Stoel, Mariëlle Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, Rens van de Schoot

Abstract

Elicitation is a commonly used tool to extract viable information from experts. The information that is held by the expert is extracted and a probabilistic representation of this knowledge is constructed. A promising avenue in psychological research is to incorporated experts' prior knowledge in the statistical analysis. Systematic reviews on elicitation literature however suggest that it might be inappropriate to directly obtain distributional representations from experts. The literature qualifies experts' performance on estimating elements of a distribution as unsatisfactory, thus reliably specifying the essential elements of the parameters of interest in one elicitation step seems implausible. Providing feedback within the elicitation process can enhance the quality of the elicitation and interactive software can be used to facilitate the feedback. Therefore, we propose to decompose the elicitation procedure into smaller steps with adjustable outcomes. We represent the tacit knowledge of experts as a location parameter and their uncertainty concerning this knowledge by a scale and shape parameter. Using a feedback procedure, experts can accept the representation of their beliefs or adjust their input. We propose a Five-Step Method which consists of (1) Eliciting the location parameter using the trial roulette method. (2) Provide feedback on the location parameter and ask for confirmation or adjustment. (3) Elicit the scale and shape parameter. (4) Provide feedback on the scale and shape parameter and ask for confirmation or adjustment. (5) Use the elicited and calibrated probability distribution in a statistical analysis and update it with data or to compute a prior-data conflict within a Bayesian framework. User feasibility and internal validity for the Five-Step Method are investigated using three elicitation studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 15%
Psychology 5 11%
Computer Science 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 14 30%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,897,466
of 23,567,959 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,877
of 31,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,219
of 442,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#290
of 528 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 528 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.