Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Delphi procedure in core outcome set development: rating scale and consensus criteria determined outcome selection
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Delphi procedure in core outcome set development: rating scale and consensus criteria determined outcome selection
Do you wish to request the book?
Delphi procedure in core outcome set development: rating scale and consensus criteria determined outcome selection
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Delphi procedure in core outcome set development: rating scale and consensus criteria determined outcome selection
2019
Overview
The objective of this study was to compare two different rating scales within one Delphi study for defining consensus in core outcome set development and to explore the influence of consensus criteria on the outcome selection.
Randomized controlled parallel group trial with 1:1 allocation within the first Delphi round of the Core Outcome Set in the Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis project. Outcomes were rated on a three-point or nine-point Likert scale. Decisions about which outcomes to retain were determined by commonly used consensus criteria (i.e., [combinations of] proportions with restricted ranges, central tendency within a specific range, and decrease in variance).
Fifty-seven participants (group 1 = 28, group 2 = 29) rated 58 outcomes. The use of the nine-point scale resulted in almost twice as many outcomes being rated as “critical” compared with the three-point scale (24 vs. 13). Stricter criteria and combining criteria led to less outcomes being identified as “critical”.
The format of rating scales in Delphi studies for core outcome set development and the definition of the consensus criteria influence outcome selection. The use of the nine-point scale might be recommended to inform the consensus process for a subsequent rating or face-to-face meeting. The three-point scale might be preferred when determining final consensus.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
