To insert individual citation into a bibliography in a word-processor,
select your preferred citation style below and drag-and-drop it into the document.
Expert opinions supplement empirical data in many epidemiologic assessments. For veterinary disease freedom surveillance, where the geographic scope of concern is often broad, populations subject to change, decisions eminent and empirical data, expert opinion can be a critical component of the decision making process. However, opinion is by definition subjective and the manner in which opinion is sought can impact the quality and reliability of estimates. Group interaction can hinder or improve the estimation process, depending on its facilitation. Further, whether and how validation is conducted can limit or increase acceptance of the resulting model. While the utility of expert opinion is widely recognized in many fields, and the impact of its use or misuse implicit, standards for application to veterinary assessments are not readily available. This paper aims to foster discussion on this influential component of epidemiology, with disease freedom application as a focus. Benefits and concerns attributed to expert judgment and guidelines for its structured elicitation are described, borrowing insights from its long history of use in decision science fields and examples from recent veterinary assessments. Published by Elsevier B.V.
The introduction is a great summary of why expert advice is needed and what the limitations are.
Also a great summary at the end of the best way to elicit expert advice
Added 2013-04-26 16:30:28 - [public]
“Experts can be excellent reservoirs, integrators and interpreters of knowledge. In many settings their ability to generate accurate predictions is a critical function of their profession and a key measure of their success”
The obvious fact is that expert opinion for any of these
applications is, by definition, subjective. The manner in
which opinions are sought can have a large impact on
the accuracy of assessment conclusions. The subjectivity
of opinion drives the belief that a structured methodology
is necessary to elicit an accurate and replicable opinion
(Curtis, 2012) and that unstructured elicitation, in contrast,
can lead to an unstructured and unreliable response
Anchoring is insufficient adjustment from a starting
value or over-reliance on one piece, or subset, of information.
With this heuristic, experts are influenced by
estimates already provided. When given a starting value,
experts may anchor to that point and adjust (often insufficiently)
their own estimates accordingly. Anchoring is
sometimes interpreted as the power of suggestion and
implicated in the overconfidence or exaggerated agreement
sometimes associated with group processes and often
referred to as group think. To achieve an accurate reflection
of an expert’s opinion, then, it is best to elicit opinions
independent of other experts and independent of example
or starting values (Gustafson et al., 1973; Garthwaite et al.,
2005).
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic
(which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments.
It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions.
The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager
like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.
Notes for this article
There are no reviews yet
