Delphi implementation management worksheet

Organize responses and reasons by round. Define consensus, stopping rules and anonymity beforehand, and record minority opinions and attrition. Response rates and IQR values in the worksheet are design examples.

When to use this worksheet and what completion involves Fictional completed example

EvalCompass Worksheet

Delphi implementation management worksheet

Method: Delphi Method

Basic information

Basic Delphi settings

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Survey theme and purpose: Consultation support indicator priorities (fictional)
Round number: Round 2
Total panel and responses: 8 panel members, 8 responses
Implementation period: September–October 2026
Survey staff: Survey staff member A

Reason for this entry: Record composition and responses for each round.

Survey theme and purpose

Round number

Total panel and responses

Implementation period

Survey staff

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Basic Delphi settings

Record composition and responses for each round.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Follow each field’s heading to record the program name, focus, period, and other details. Leave undecided matters clearly marked as unresolved.

Read the full fictional example

Question list, round 2 onward

Record each item's median, interquartile range and agreement level.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Item number	Question or indicator content	Median	Interquartile range (Q1–Q3)	Agreement level: high / medium / low
1	Percentage connected to support they wanted	4	4～4.5	High: meets this example's predefined median≥4 and IQR≤1 criteria

Reason for this entry: Calculate statistics from the 8 specified fictional ratings.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Item number	Question or indicator content	Median	Interquartile range (Q1–Q3)	Agreement level: high / medium / low

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Record each item's median, interquartile range and agreement level.

Calculate statistics from the 8 specified fictional ratings.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Important minority opinions

Record dissenting opinions and reasons anonymously for next-round feedback.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

One view was that prioritizing institutional service use undervalues people's choice not to apply after consultation. Consider clarifying the definition.

Reason for this entry: Retain disagreements over meaning even with high ratings.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Record dissenting opinions and reasons anonymously for next-round feedback.

Retain disagreements over meaning even with high ratings.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Use the example as a reference and record what you have established about your own program. Distinguish assumptions and unchecked matters from confirmed facts.

Read the full fictional example

Convergence judgment notes

Record converged items, items carried forward and reasons for stopping.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

This example prespecifies at most 3 rounds and median≥4 and IQR≤1 as consensus guidance. Check revised definitions and remaining disagreement in round 3, then stop.

Reason for this entry: Values are design examples for this study, not universal standards.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Record converged items, items carried forward and reasons for stopping.

Values are design examples for this study, not universal standards.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Use the example as a reference and record what you have established about your own program. Distinguish assumptions and unchecked matters from confirmed facts.

Read the full fictional example

Operational quality check

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

☑ Checked: Anonymity is ensured for all panel members
☑ Checked: Returned previous-round statistics, medians and quartiles
☑ Checked: Included minority reasons in feedback
☐ Not checked: Recorded response denominators and attrition for each round, and checked predefined retention guidance and final panel adequacy
☑ Checked: Set convergence criteria, such as IQR≤1.5, beforehand

Reason for this entry: Panel members are anonymous to one another; researchers manage contact details. Specify anonymity coverage. Although all 8 of 8 responses are recorded here, this example lacks records checking each round's denominator, attrition and final panel adequacy, so the retention item remains unchecked.

Anonymity is ensured for all panel members
Returned previous-round statistics, medians and quartiles
Included minority reasons in feedback
Recorded response denominators and attrition for each round, and checked predefined retention guidance and final panel adequacy
Set convergence criteria, such as IQR≤1.5, beforehand

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Panel members are anonymous to one another; researchers manage contact details. Specify anonymity coverage. Although all 8 of 8 responses are recorded here, this example lacks records checking each round's denominator, attrition and final panel adequacy, so the retention item remains unchecked.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Read each item and check those you have confirmed. Do not use the fictional example’s checkbox states as findings about your own program.

Read the full fictional example

Before writing, check when to use the worksheet and what completion involves

Delphi implementation management worksheet is a worksheet for applying Delphi Method in meetings or individual work. For the overall duration of the method, use “Illustrative estimate, adjusted to scale and staffing: 2–4 rounds × 2–4 weeks per round, 1–3 months total” as a reference, adjusting for scale and resources. Fill in what you know provisionally and leave unresolved matters as questions to check next.

When this worksheet is useful

When seeking consensus from experts dispersed geographically or in time
When systematically aggregating expert views on the validity of evaluation indicators or criteria
Structured opinion aggregation when face-to-face discussion is difficult

Participants and preparation

A panel with expertise or experience relevant to the question and survey administrators. Set numbers according to needed perspectives and conditions, and specify anonymity between participants and toward administrators.

Bring the materials used for decisions, existing data, and differing stakeholder views to help complete the worksheet.

Suggested order

1. Basic informationBasic Delphi settings
2. Question list, round 2 onwardRecord each item's median, interquartile range and agreement level.
3. Important minority opinionsRecord dissenting opinions and reasons anonymously for next-round feedback.
4. Convergence judgment notesRecord converged items, items carried forward and reasons for stopping.
5. Operational quality check

Signs the worksheet is ready for review

Round-by-round summaries: medians and interquartile ranges
Agreed indicators and criteria
Convergence process record

Cautions for review

Selecting experts without a clear definition biases the panel toward particular interests or positions. Document selection criteria.
Declining response rates between rounds reduce representativeness. Regular contact and compensation arrangements are needed.
Returning only medians without minority reasons encourages excessive conformity.

Read a completed fictional example (your entries will not change)

Fictional example; not actual results

A fictional illustrative example with 8 practitioners and people with service experience rating indicator importance from 1–5.

Basic information

Survey theme and purpose: Consultation support indicator priorities (fictional)
Round number: Round 2
Total panel and responses: 8 panel members, 8 responses
Implementation period: September–October 2026
Survey staff: Survey staff member A

Reason for this entry: Record composition and responses for each round.

Question list, round 2 onward

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Item number	Question or indicator content	Median	Interquartile range (Q1–Q3)	Agreement level: high / medium / low
1	Percentage connected to support they wanted	4	4～4.5	High: meets this example's predefined median≥4 and IQR≤1 criteria

Reason for this entry: Calculate statistics from the 8 specified fictional ratings.

Important minority opinions

One view was that prioritizing institutional service use undervalues people's choice not to apply after consultation. Consider clarifying the definition.

Reason for this entry: Retain disagreements over meaning even with high ratings.

Convergence judgment notes

This example prespecifies at most 3 rounds and median≥4 and IQR≤1 as consensus guidance. Check revised definitions and remaining disagreement in round 3, then stop.

Reason for this entry: Values are design examples for this study, not universal standards.

Operational quality check

☑ Checked: Anonymity is ensured for all panel members
☑ Checked: Returned previous-round statistics, medians and quartiles
☑ Checked: Included minority reasons in feedback
☐ Not checked: Recorded response denominators and attrition for each round, and checked predefined retention guidance and final panel adequacy
☑ Checked: Set convergence criteria, such as IQR≤1.5, beforehand

Common errors in judgment

Declaring an indicator professionally correct because its mean is high

How to revise: Report panel composition, agreement scope and dissent together.

Reason: Agreement does not automatically demonstrate validity.

Calling it convergence when dissenters leave and opinions align

How to revise: Check continuing respondents and attrition separately.

Reason: Agreement can rise solely because participants change.

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: 2026-10-07Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checking Cite this page Report a correction

References and checked sections

RAND Methodological Guidance for Conducting and Critically Appraising Delphi Panels
Dmitry Khodyakov, Sean Grant, Jack Kroger, Melissa Bauman / RAND · 2023
Section consulted
Chapter 2: What Delphi Is; Chapter 3: Level of Anonymity, Stopping Criteria; Chapter 5: Consensus; p.37 Panelist Flow and Attrition Across Rounds; p.47 DCAT item 8
How it relates to the text
Define anonymity and stopping rules before recruitment, and return aggregated responses and reasons for the next round. Explain participation rates, denominators, attrition and final panel adequacy.
Source checked: 2026-10-07 (includes AI cross-checking)

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Delphi implementation management worksheet”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-10-07. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/worksheets/delphi/

Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.

Suggest a correction or improvement to this page

Change history

2026-09-13 — Updated explanations to correspond with sources, and added method-specific fictional worksheet examples, judgment examples and revision history.
2026-10-07 — Made minimal corrections to assertions, fixed conditions or inconsistencies between worksheets and examples based on content check FW-08. Preserved field counts, order, labels and section structure. Did not change verification status of unchecked material.
2026-10-07 — Based on limited follow-up investigation FW-U01–U05, clarified applicability of analysis methods, recording deadlines and participant counts and premises for response checks. Preserved existing fields without declaring numerical guidance itself erroneous.