IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i9p1781-1794.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Performance Weights and Discussion in Aggregated Expert Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Anca M. Hanea
  • Marissa F. McBride
  • Mark A. Burgman
  • Bonnie C. Wintle

Abstract

In risky situations characterized by imminent decisions, scarce resources, and insufficient data, policymakers rely on experts to estimate model parameters and their associated uncertainties. Different elicitation and aggregation methods can vary substantially in their efficacy and robustness. While it is generally agreed that biases in expert judgments can be mitigated using structured elicitations involving groups rather than individuals, there is still some disagreement about how to best elicit and aggregate judgments. This mostly concerns the merits of using performance‐based weighting schemes to combine judgments of different individuals (rather than assigning equal weights to individual experts), and the way that interaction between experts should be handled. This article aims to contribute to, and complement, the ongoing discussion on these topics.

Suggested Citation

  • Anca M. Hanea & Marissa F. McBride & Mark A. Burgman & Bonnie C. Wintle, 2018. "The Value of Performance Weights and Discussion in Aggregated Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1781-1794, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:9:p:1781-1794
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12992
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12992
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12992?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger M. Cooke, 2015. "The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 12-15, January.
    2. A.M. Hanea & M.F. McBride & M.A. Burgman & B.C. Wintle, 2018. "Classical meets modern in the IDEA protocol for structured expert judgement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 417-433, April.
    3. David V. Budescu & Eva Chen, 2015. "Identifying Expertise to Extract the Wisdom of Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 267-280, February.
    4. Willy Aspinall, 2010. "A route to more tractable expert advice," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 294-295, January.
    5. M. Granger Morgan, 2015. "Our Knowledge of the World is Often Not Simple: Policymakers Should Not Duck that Fact, But Should Deal with It," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 19-20, January.
    6. Robert L. Winkler*, 2015. "Equal Versus Differential Weighting in Combining Forecasts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 16-18, January.
    7. Jonathan Baron & Barbara A. Mellers & Philip E. Tetlock & Eric Stone & Lyle H. Ungar, 2014. "Two Reasons to Make Aggregated Probability Forecasts More Extreme," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 133-145, June.
    8. Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2015. "The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 5-11, January.
    9. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, April.
    10. Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2015. "There is Data, and then there is Data: Only Experimental Evidence will Determine the Utility of Differential Weighting of Expert Judgment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 21-26, January.
    11. Rowe, Gene & Wright, George, 1999. "The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 353-375, October.
    12. Cooke, Roger M. & Goossens, Louis L.H.J., 2008. "TU Delft expert judgment data base," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(5), pages 657-674.
    13. von der Gracht, Heiko A., 2012. "Consensus measurement in Delphi studies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(8), pages 1525-1536.
    14. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    15. Mark A Burgman & Marissa McBride & Raquel Ashton & Andrew Speirs-Bridge & Louisa Flander & Bonnie Wintle & Fiona Fidler & Libby Rumpff & Charles Twardy, 2011. "Expert Status and Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-7, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mauksch, Stefanie & von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Gordon, Theodore J., 2020. "Who is an expert for foresight? A review of identification methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. A M Hanea & D P Wilkinson & M McBride & A Lyon & D van Ravenzwaaij & F Singleton Thorn & C Gray & D R Mandel & A Willcox & E Gould & E T Smith & F Mody & M Bush & F Fidler & H Fraser & B C Wintle, 2021. "Mathematically aggregating experts’ predictions of possible futures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-24, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gregory F. Nemet & Laura Diaz Anadon & Elena Verdolini, 2017. "Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts’ Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 315-330, February.
    2. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.
    3. Patrick Afflerbach & Christopher Dun & Henner Gimpel & Dominik Parak & Johannes Seyfried, 2021. "A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Wisdom of Crowds Phenomenon in Aggregating Expert Judgment," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(4), pages 329-348, August.
    4. Hanea, A.M. & McBride, M.F. & Burgman, M.A. & Wintle, B.C. & Fidler, F. & Flander, L. & Twardy, C.R. & Manning, B. & Mascaro, S., 2017. "I nvestigate D iscuss E stimate A ggregate for structured expert judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 267-279.
    5. Anne E. Smith, 2018. "Setting Air Quality Standards for PM2.5: A Role for Subjective Uncertainty in NAAQS Quantitative Risk Assessments?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2318-2339, November.
    6. Martine J. Barons & Lael E. Walsh & Edward E. Salakpi & Linda Nichols, 2024. "A Decision Support System for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Loss Reduction under Uncertain Agricultural Policy Frameworks," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Bolger, Fergus & Wright, George, 2017. "Use of expert knowledge to anticipate the future: Issues, analysis and directions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 230-243.
    8. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    9. Julia R. Falconer & Eibe Frank & Devon L. L. Polaschek & Chaitanya Joshi, 2022. "Methods for Eliciting Informative Prior Distributions: A Critical Review," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 189-204, September.
    10. Christopher W. Karvetski & David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2020. "Improving Probability Judgment in Intelligence Analysis: From Structured Analysis to Statistical Aggregation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1040-1057, May.
    11. David V. Budescu & Eva Chen, 2015. "Identifying Expertise to Extract the Wisdom of Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 267-280, February.
    12. Satopää, Ville A. & Salikhov, Marat & Tetlock, Philip E. & Mellers, Barbara, 2023. "Decomposing the effects of crowd-wisdom aggregators: The bias–information–noise (BIN) model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 470-485.
    13. Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2015. "The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 5-11, January.
    14. Robert L. Winkler & Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr. & Victor Richmond R. Jose, 2019. "Probability Forecasts and Their Combination: A Research Perspective," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 239-260, December.
    15. Christopher W. Karvetski & Kenneth C. Olson & David R. Mandel & Charles R. Twardy, 2013. "Probabilistic Coherence Weighting for Optimizing Expert Forecasts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 305-326, December.
    16. Prianto Budi Saptono & Gustofan Mahmud & Intan Pratiwi & Dwi Purwanto & Ismail Khozen & Muhamad Akbar Aditama & Siti Khodijah & Maria Eurelia Wayan & Rina Yuliastuty Asmara & Ferry Jie, 2023. "Development of Climate-Related Disclosure Indicators for Application in Indonesia: A Delphi Method Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-25, July.
    17. Di Zio, Simone & Bolzan, Mario & Marozzi, Marco, 2021. "Classification of Delphi outputs through robust ranking and fuzzy clustering for Delphi-based scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:395-411 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Alyami, Saleh. H. & Rezgui, Yacine & Kwan, Alan, 2013. "Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 43-54.
    20. Jaspersen, Johannes G., 2022. "Convex combinations in judgment aggregation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 780-794.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:607-621 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:9:p:1781-1794. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.