IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0022998.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expert Status and Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Mark A Burgman
  • Marissa McBride
  • Raquel Ashton
  • Andrew Speirs-Bridge
  • Louisa Flander
  • Bonnie Wintle
  • Fiona Fidler
  • Libby Rumpff
  • Charles Twardy

Abstract

Expert judgements are essential when time and resources are stretched or we face novel dilemmas requiring fast solutions. Good advice can save lives and large sums of money. Typically, experts are defined by their qualifications, track record and experience [1], [2]. The social expectation hypothesis argues that more highly regarded and more experienced experts will give better advice. We asked experts to predict how they will perform, and how their peers will perform, on sets of questions. The results indicate that the way experts regard each other is consistent, but unfortunately, ranks are a poor guide to actual performance. Expert advice will be more accurate if technical decisions routinely use broadly-defined expert groups, structured question protocols and feedback.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0022998
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022998
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022998&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0022998?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. Willy Aspinall, 2010. "A route to more tractable expert advice," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 294-295, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Colson, Abigail R. & Cooke, Roger M., 2017. "Cross validation for the classical model of structured expert judgment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 109-120.
    3. Kragt, M.E. & Pannell, D.J. & McVittie, A. & Stott, A.W. & Vosough Ahmadi, B. & Wilson, P., 2016. "Improving interdisciplinary collaboration in bio-economic modelling for agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 217-224.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Eric Libby & Leon Glass, 2010. "The Calculus of Committee Composition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-8, September.
    7. E. Schuur & B. Abbott & W. Bowden & V. Brovkin & P. Camill & J. Canadell & J. Chanton & F. Chapin & T. Christensen & P. Ciais & B. Crosby & C. Czimczik & G. Grosse & J. Harden & D. Hayes & G. Hugelius, 2013. "Expert assessment of vulnerability of permafrost carbon to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 359-374, July.
    8. Alvarado-Valencia, Jorge & Barrero, Lope H. & Önkal, Dilek & Dennerlein, Jack T., 2017. "Expertise, credibility of system forecasts and integration methods in judgmental demand forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 298-313.
    9. Flandoli, F. & Giorgi, E. & Aspinall, W.P. & Neri, A., 2011. "Comparison of a new expert elicitation model with the Classical Model, equal weights and single experts, using a cross-validation technique," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(10), pages 1292-1310.
    10. Mark C. Quigley & Luke G. Bennetts & Patricia Durance & Petra M. Kuhnert & Mark D. Lindsay & Keith G. Pembleton & Melanie E. Roberts & Christopher J. White, 2019. "The provision and utility of earth science to decision-makers: synthesis and key findings," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 349-367, September.
    11. repec:osf:metaar:rxmh7_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Alberto Ardid & David Dempsey & Corentin Caudron & Shane Cronin & Ben Kennedy & Társilo Girona & Diana Roman & Craig Miller & Sally Potter & Oliver D. Lamb & Anto Martanto & Yesim Cubuk-Sabuncu & Leon, 2025. "Ergodic seismic precursors and transfer learning for short term eruption forecasting at data scarce volcanoes," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Christian Ganser & Marc Keuschnigg, 2018. "Social Influence Strengthens Crowd Wisdom Under Voting," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-23, September.
    14. Cooke, Roger M., 2014. "Deep and Shallow Uncertainty in Messaging Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series dp-14-11, Resources for the Future.
    15. David V. Budescu & Eva Chen, 2015. "Identifying Expertise to Extract the Wisdom of Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 267-280, February.
    16. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Decision analysis under ambiguity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 823-836.
    17. 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.
    18. Fathy, Mohammad & Kazemzadeh Haghighi, Foojan & Ahmadi, Mohammad, 2024. "Uncertainty quantification of reservoir performance using machine learning algorithms and structured expert judgment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    19. Randall Lutter & Linda Abbott & Rick Becker & Chris Borgert & Ann Bradley & Gail Charnley & Susan Dudley & Alan Felsot & Nancy Golden & George Gray & Daland Juberg & Mary Mitchell & Nancy Rachman & Lo, 2015. "Improving Weight of Evidence Approaches to Chemical Evaluations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 186-192, February.
    20. Ludovic Gaudard & Franco Romerio, 2020. "A Conceptual Framework to Classify and Manage Risk, Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Application to Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    21. 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.

    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:plo:pone00:0022998. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.