Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29933407›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Eliciting improved quantitative judgements using the IDEA protocol: A case study in natural resource management.

Victoria Hemming, Terry V Walshe, Anca M Hanea, Fiona Fidler, Mark A Burgman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Emerging human dimensions research in coastal and nearshore Oceania.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluating models of expert judgment to inform assessment of ecosystem viability and collapse.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Victoria HemmingThe Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, The School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3220-6161
Terry V WalsheThe Centre for Environmental and Economic Research, The School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anca M HaneaThe Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, The School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Fiona FidlerThe School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Mark A BurgmanThe Centre for Environmental and Economic Research, The School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNatural resource management uses expert judgement to estimate facts that inform important decisions. Unfortunately, expert judgement is often derived by informal and largely untested protocols, despite evidence that the quality of judgements can be improved with structured approaches. We attribute the lack of uptake of structured protocols to the dearth of illustrative examples that demonstrate how they can be applied within pressing time and resource constraints, while also improving judgements. AIMS AND

methodsIn this paper, we demonstrate how the IDEA protocol for structured expert elicitation may be deployed to overcome operational challenges while improving the quality of judgements. The protocol was applied to the estimation of 14 future abiotic and biotic events on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Seventy-six participants with varying levels of expertise related to the Great Barrier Reef were recruited and allocated randomly to eight groups. Each participant provided their judgements using the four-step question format of the IDEA protocol ('Investigate', 'Discuss', 'Estimate', 'Aggregate') through remote elicitation. When the events were realised, the participant judgements were scored in terms of accuracy, calibration and informativeness. RESULTS AND

conclusionsThe results demonstrate that the IDEA protocol provides a practical, cost-effective, and repeatable approach to the elicitation of quantitative estimates and uncertainty via remote elicitation. We emphasise that i) the aggregation of diverse individual judgements into pooled group judgments almost always outperformed individuals, and ii) use of a modified Delphi approach helped to remove linguistic ambiguity, and further improved individual and group judgements. Importantly, the protocol encourages review, critical appraisal and replication, each of which is required if judgements are to be used in place of data in a scientific context. The results add to the growing body of literature that demonstrates the merit of using structured elicitation protocols. We urge decision-makers and analysts to use insights and examples to improve the evidence base of expert judgement in natural resource management.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleNatural ResourcesRandom Allocation

Identifiers

PMID29933407
PMCPMC6014637
OpenAlexW2809510318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.