, Volume 11, Issue 16, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Statistical Analysis Methods of Delphi Consensus in Forecasting and Their Use for Policy Assessment

  • Hajime Eto


Consensus among experts in the technological forecasting by the Delphi method is here shown to be interpretable as a leading indicator or rather an antecedent factor of a national consensus and therefore as an intersubjective probability of choosing a particular policy among prospective policies when experts are properly selected. The condition under which this interpretation is valid is shown to hold in several Delphi surveys. Hence a logical foundation is obtained to fill two gaps: one gap between subjective opinions and an objective event of technological breakthroughs, and the other gap between the distributed opinions and a single event. Thus the statistical analysis of consensus is now given a meaning and the statistical methods are discussed to measure the consensus among experts in terms of, e.g., distribution matchings of their opinions. Experiences in technological and social forecastings and assessments are reported.

Key Words and Phrases

technological forecasting Delphi method expert opinion technology assessment consensus distribution matching vector correlation intergroup concordance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arabie, P. (1982). Reviews; Psychomeirika, 47, 361–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloxom, B. (1972). The Simplex in pair comparisons; Psychomeirika, 37, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll, J.D. and Chang, J.J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition: Psychomeirika, 35, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatterjee, S.K. (1973). Rank procedures for some two-population multivariate extended classification problems, Journal of Multivariate Analysis. 3, 26–56.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conover, W.J. (1972). A Kolmogorov goodness of fit test for discontinuous distribution. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67, 591–596.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalkey, N.C. (1967). Delphi, RAND P. 3704.Google Scholar
  7. Dalkey, N.C. (1968). Experiments in group prediction; RAND P. 3820.Google Scholar
  8. Dalkey, N.C. (1969). The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion; RAND RM5888PR.Google Scholar
  9. Dalkey, N.C, Brown, B. and Cochran, S.W. (1970). The Delphi method IV: Effect of percentile feedback and feed-in of relevant facts, RAND RM6118PR.Google Scholar
  10. Eto, H. (1972). Methodological discussions on the Delphi method, in Y. Hayashi (ed), Basic design of Japanese R&D system; Institute of Future Technology, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  11. Eto, H. (1979). Ablaufplan für Technik-Prognosen nach der Delphi-Methode und ihre statistische Auswertung zur Entwicklung von Technik-Strategien; Wissenchaftliche Zeitschrift, Math- und Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe, 28, 703–705.Google Scholar
  12. Eto, H. (1980). Problems and lessons of Japanese Technology Policy; R&D Management, 10, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eto, H. (1983). Behaviour of Japanese R&D organizations, Conflict and its resolution by informal mechanisms; in H. Eto and K. Matsui (eds): R&D Management systems in Japanese industry, North-Holland, 139–238.Google Scholar
  14. Gibbons, J. (1971). Nonparametric Statistical Inference, McGraw Hill.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordon, T.J. and Helmer, O. (1964). Report on a long range forecasting study; RAND P. 2982.Google Scholar
  16. Hayashi, C., Higuchi, I. and Komazawa, T. (1970). Joho shori to tokei suri (Data Processing and Statistical Mathematics); Sangyo Tosho.Google Scholar
  17. Helmer, O. (1964). Convergence of expert consensus through feedback; RAND P. 2973.Google Scholar
  18. Helmer, O. (1966). The use of the Delphi technique in problems of educational innovations; RAND P. 3499.Google Scholar
  19. Helmer, O. (1967A). Analysis of the future: The Delphi method; RAND P. 3558.Google Scholar
  20. Helmer, O. (1967B). Systematic use of expert opinions; RAND P. 3721.Google Scholar
  21. Hill, M.O. (1974). Correspondence analysis: A neglected multivariate method; Journal of the Royal Statistical Society C, 23, 340–354.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Hollander, M. and Sethuraman, J. (1978). Testing for agreement between two groups of judges; Biometrika, 62, 403–411.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kendall, M.G. (1955). Rank correlation methods (2nd ed.) Haffner Pub. Co.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Komazawa, T. (1974). Informal discussion on his modified qualification theory.Google Scholar
  25. Li, L. and Schucany, W.R. (1975). Some properties of a test for concordance of two groups of rankings; Biometrika, 62, 417–423.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Linhart, H. (1960), Approximate test for m rankings; Biometrika, 47, 476–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyerly, S.B. (1952). The average Spearman rank correlation coefficient; Psychometrika, 17, 421–428.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ministry of Labour of Japan (1973). A Forecast of workers life in 1980’s.Google Scholar
  29. Mirkin, B.G. (1979). Group Choice; V.H. Winston, (trans, from Russian)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Miyazaki Prefecture (1975). Delphi surveys on goals of development planning.Google Scholar
  31. NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) (1974). Social forecasting of 1980’s.Google Scholar
  32. Ogawara, M. (1947). On the correlation between vector random variables with different dimensions; Sugaku, 1, 216.Google Scholar
  33. Ogawara, M. (1975). A note on the vector correlations; Science Report of Tokyo Woman’s Christian College, 32, 386–392.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Page, E.B. (1963), Ordered Hypothesis for multiple treatments: A significance test for linear ranks; fournal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pettitt, A.N. (1982). Parametric tests for agreement amongst groups of judges; Biometrika 69, 365–375.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schucany, W.R. and Frawley, W.H. (1973). A rank test for two group concordance; Psychometrika, 38, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Science and Technology Agency of Japan (1971, 1977 and 1982). Report of technology forecasting.Google Scholar
  38. Thompson, W.A. Jr. and Willke, T.A. (1963). On an extreme rank sum test for outliers; Biometrika, 50, 375–383.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weeks, J.R. and Bogart, K.P. (1979). Consensus signed digraphs; SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 36, 1–14.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Behaviormetric Society 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hajime Eto
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Socio-economic PlanningUniversity of TsukubaSakura, IbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations