Eliciting expert judgement
نویسندگان
چکیده
Expert judgements are routine in biosecurity risk analysis. This report reviews methods for eliciting probabilities, quantities, and conceptual models. It defines ‘expert’ status, reviews the literature on biases and heuristics in expert judgements and outlines methods for detecting and eliciting values, attitudes and motivations. The report describes direct and indirect techniques for eliciting point estimates and uncertainties for quantities, frequencies and probabilities, and for eliciting the structure of conceptual models. It evaluates the use of language-based risk categories and describes methods to detect and adjust for bias and variability in expert judgements. Feedback and training are likely to make useful additions to elicitation protocols. Few of the formal techniques for elicitation, calibration or verification have been evaluated in conditions typical of biosecurity risk analysis, creating an opportunity to test the most promising of them.
منابع مشابه
Eliciting Expert Judgement for the Probability of Auv Loss in Contrasting Operational Environments
Each time an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) is used in the sea there is a non-zero probability of loss. Quantifying probability of loss is not an exact science; therefore much depends on the fault history of the vehicle, the operational environment and the complex relationships between the consequences of faults or incidents and the environment. While this problem may be stated in scientif...
متن کاملOn Understanding Power of Judgement in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Aim: Explain how research can advance the state-of-the-practice in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: Identifying the success factors of PCI; identifying decision-making performance (power of judgement) as the factor that could be advanced faster than it is currently the case; explaining why and how such advancement needs a different research approach than those curr...
متن کاملExpert Judgement and Expert Disagreement
As Hammond has argued, traditional explanations for disagreement among experts (incompetence, venality, and ideology) are inadequate. The character and fallibilities of the human judgement process itself lead to persistent disagreements even among competent, honest, and disinterested experts. Social Judgement Theory provides powerful methods for analysing such judgementally based disagreements ...
متن کاملA comparison of two methods for expert elicitation in health technology assessments
BACKGROUND When data needed to inform parameters in decision models are lacking, formal elicitation of expert judgement can be used to characterise parameter uncertainty. Although numerous methods for eliciting expert opinion as probability distributions exist, there is little research to suggest whether one method is more useful than any other method. This study had three objectives: (i) to ob...
متن کاملOn the use of expert judgement in the qualification of risk assessment
The increased use of risk assesment in governmental and corporate decisionmaking has increased the role of expert judgement in providing information for safety related decision-making. Expert judgements are required in most steps of risk assessment: hazard identification, risk estimation, risk evaluation and analysis of options. The use and elicitation of expert judgement is therefore subject t...
متن کامل