Lack of Preregistered Analysis Plans Allows Unacceptable Data Mining for and Selective Reporting of Consensus in Delphi Studies

Published in: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 99 (July 2018), Pages 96-105. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.007

Posted on RAND.org on April 17, 2018

by Sean Grant, Marika Booth, Dmitry Khodyakov

Read More

Access further information on this document at Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Objectives

To empirically demonstrate how undisclosed analytic flexibility provides substantial latitude for data mining and selective reporting of consensus in Delphi processes.

Study Design and Setting

Pooling data across eight online modified-Delphi panels, we first calculated the percentage of items reaching consensus according to descriptive analysis procedures commonly used in health research but selected post hoc in this article. We then examined the variability of items reaching consensus across panels.

Results

Pooling all panel data, the percentage of items reaching consensus ranged from 0% to 84%, depending on the analysis procedure. Comparing data across panels, variability in the percentage of items reaching consensus for each analysis procedure ranged from 0 (i.e., all panels had the same percentage of items reaching consensus for a given analysis procedure) to 83 (i.e., panels had a range of 11% to 94% of items reaching consensus for a given analysis procedure). Of 200 total panel-by-analysis-procedure configurations, four configurations (2%) had all items and 64 (32%) had no items reaching consensus.

Conclusion

Undisclosed analytic flexibility makes it unacceptably easy to data mine for and selectively report consensus in Delphi processes. As a solution, we recommend prospective, complete registration of preanalysis plans for consensus-oriented Delphi processes in health research.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.