An investigation of the effects of feedback on variability and central tendency of group opinion while employing the Delphi technique Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/g158bm335

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the Delphi Technique on two types of judgment; factual judgment and value judgment. Other considerations were the effect of the process on mean response and variability of response. In testing the Delphi Technique this study arrived at five definite conclusions: 1. The Delphi Technique did not promote a significant change in mean response to factual judgment items. 2. The Delphi Technique did not promote a significant change in mean response to value judgment items. 3. The Delphi Technique did not produce a consistent change in variance of response to factual judgment items. 4. The Delphi Technique did not produce a significant change in variance of response to value judgment items. 5. The Delphi Technique caused a reduction in the number of responses to the last survey in the process. In addition to these five conclusions there were some noteworthy observations about the procedure of the Delphi Technique. The most outstanding observation was the fact that the investigator was continually facing a time deadline for analyzing the results of the first survey in order to provide feedback for the second survey. The investigator was faced with the same rush schedule to analyze the results of survey two in order to provide feedback for survey three. On top of being faced with a continuous rush schedule, the unavailability of a survey instrument necessitated a separate study to develop the research instrument for this study. The Delphi Technique was used to identify the goals of the Industrial Education Department on the Oregon State University campus. Participants in the study consisted of five groups. The groups were: Industrial Education faculty, Industrial Education undergraduates, administrators of the School of Education, employers of Industrial Education graduate students and recent graduates of the Industrial Education department. Out of the five groups recent graduates and employers were deleted from the study due to their lack of response to the recurring surveys of the Delphi Technique. The general Delphi procedure followed was: 1. A survey instrument was administered to the five groups of respondents. 2. The data provided were analyzed to provide feedback for a second survey. A new survey instrument was printed incorporating the feedback. The instrument was used to survey the same groups of respondents. 3. The data provided by the second survey were analyzed to provide feedback for a third survey. At this point the group of employers was deleted from the study since zero returns were received from this group. 4. The results of the third survey were analyzed to provide an indication of the responses to the third survey. At this point the group of recent graduates was deleted since they returned only two instruments. 5. Tests for significant difference between survey one and survey three provided the basis for conclusions drawn by this study. The Pilot Study A 43-item preliminary instrument was developed and administered to a group of students that were not involved in the Delphi (undergraduate and graduate students). The results of this survey were factor analyzed to eliminate spurious items and group the remaining usable items. Thirty items were identified as suitable for the instrument. These 30 items were placed in the following four groups: 1. Goal statements dealing with student development in the affective domain. 2. Goal statements dealing with student development in the cognitive domain. 3. Goal statements dealing with curriculum flexibility. 4. Goal statements dealing with a student oriented faculty.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Copyright
Date Issued
Degree Level
Degree Name
Degree Field
Degree Grantor
Commencement Year
Advisor
Committee Member
Academic Affiliation
Non-Academic Affiliation
Subject
Rights Statement
Peer Reviewed
Language
Digitization Specifications
  • File scanned at 300 ppi (Monochrome) using ScandAll PRO 1.8.1 on a Fi-6770A in PDF format. CVista PdfCompressor 5.0 was used for pdf compression and textual OCR.
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2014-01-07T14:54:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 JonesHomerW1973.pdf: 951407 bytes, checksum: d8035c987da3d0cdec3349dbed1a50ed (MD5) Previous issue date: 1973-05-01
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2014-01-07T14:54:02Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 JonesHomerW1973.pdf: 951407 bytes, checksum: d8035c987da3d0cdec3349dbed1a50ed (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Lauren Kaysen (kaysenl@onid.orst.edu) on 2014-01-06T22:49:13Z No. of bitstreams: 1 JonesHomerW1973.pdf: 951407 bytes, checksum: d8035c987da3d0cdec3349dbed1a50ed (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2014-01-07T14:48:36Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 JonesHomerW1973.pdf: 951407 bytes, checksum: d8035c987da3d0cdec3349dbed1a50ed (MD5)

Relationships

In Administrative Set:
Last modified: 08/14/2017

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
Citations:

EndNote | Zotero | Mendeley

Items