A social choice approach to expert consensus panels.

This study uses recent theoretical work about group decision-making to assess the quality of decision-making by expert consensus panels. We specifically examine (1) when individual members of panels will divulge their private judgments about the decision to the panel, and (2) when the group judgment is superior to the judgment of individual panelists and will lead to better treatment for patients. We conclude that to maximize the chance of an accurate decision, panels should be made as large as possible, adopt the smallest supermajority rule, and attract members with the highest individual competencies. Furthermore, interdependence among panelists and the goal of reaching consensus can reduce the efficacy of these panels.

[1]  A. McLennan.  Consequences of the Condorcet Jury Theorem for Beneficial Information Aggregation by Rational Agents , 1998, American Political Science Review.

[2]  A. P. Meijler,et al.  Panellist consistency in the assessment of medical appropriateness. , 1996, Health policy.

[3]  D. Hunter,et al.  Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research , 1995 .

[4]  I. Janis.  Victims Of Groupthink , 1972 .

[5]  David M. Eddy,et al.  Clinical Decision Making , 1996 .

[6]  D. Eddy.  Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Practice policies --what are they? , 1990, JAMA.

[7]  A. Oberschall.  Theories of Social Conflict , 1978 .

[8]  R. Brook,et al.  Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. , 1984, American journal of public health.

[9]  T. Feddersen,et al.  Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting , 1996, American Political Science Review.

[10]  J. Wennberg,et al.  Dealing with medical practice variations: a proposal for action. , 1984, Health affairs.

[11]  Christopher Winship,et al.  Information Processing and Jury Decisionmaking , 1984 .

[12]  P. Shekelle,et al.  The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey: results of a randomized controlled trial. , 1999, Medical care.

[13]  David Austen-Smith,et al.  Deliberation and Voting Rules , 2005 .

[14]  K. Ladha.  The Condorcet Jury Theorem, Free Speech and Correlated Votes , 1992 .

[15]  G. Stasser,et al.  Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. , 1992 .

[16]  Mark Fey,et al.  A note on the Condorcet Jury Theorem with supermajority voting rules , 2003, Soc. Choice Welf..

[17]  A R Feinstein,et al.  A bibliography of publications on observer variability. , 1985, Journal of chronic diseases.

[18]  J P Kahan,et al.  The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  R. Hastie,et al.  The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. , 1993 .

[20]  B. Grofman.  Information Pooling and Group Decision Making , 1986 .

[21]  P M Wortman,et al.  Consensus Among Experts and Research Synthesis: A Comparison of Methods , 1998, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[22]  P. Taylor.  Clinical Decision Making: From Theory to Practice , 1996 .

[23]  A. P. Meijler,et al.  Setting standards for effectiveness: a comparison of expert panels and decision analysis. , 1997, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[24]  Gwen M. Wittenbaum,et al.  The Role of Prior Expectancy and Group Discussion in the Attribution of Attitudes , 1995 .

[25]  Dino Gerardi,et al.  Jury Verdicts and Preference Diversity , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[26]  Cass R. Sunstein,et al.  Are Juries Less Erratic than Individuals? Deliberation, Polarization, and Punitive Damages , 1999 .

[27]  J. Banks,et al.  Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem , 1996, American Political Science Review.

[28]  Average Competence, Variability in Individual Competence, and Accuracy of Statistically Pooled Group Decisions , 1982 .

[29]  K. Baker,et al.  Condorcet : selected writings , 1976 .

[30]  G. Stasser,et al.  Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  G. Stasser,et al.  Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. , 1989 .

[32]  P M Wortman,et al.  Group decision making by experts: field study of panels evaluating medical technologies. , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  Peter J. Coughlan.  In Defense of Unanimous Jury Verdicts: Mistrials, Communication, and Strategic Voting , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[34]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Impact of varying panel membership on ratings of appropriateness in consensus panels: a comparison of a multi- and single disciplinary panel. , 1995, Health services research.

[35]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. , 1999, BMJ.

[36]  R H Brook,et al.  Variations in the use of medical and surgical services by the Medicare population. , 1986, The New England journal of medicine.

[37]  L. Leape,et al.  Measuring the Necessity of Medical Procedures , 1994, Medical care.

[38]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion , 1985 .

[39]  G. Owen,et al.  Thirteen theorems in search of the truth , 1983 .

[40]  Bernard Grofman,et al.  Judgmental competence of individuals and groups in a dichotomous choice situation: Is a majority of heads better than one? , 1978 .

[41]  K. Ladha.  Information pooling through majority-rule voting: Condorcet's jury theorem with correlated votes , 1995 .

[42]  L. Leape,et al.  Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. , 1996, Medical care.

[43]  C. List,et al.  Epistemic democracy : generalizing the Condorcet jury theorem , 2001 .

[44]  J. Kahan,et al.  Effect of panel composition on physician ratings of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: elucidating differences between multispecialty panel results and specialty society recommendations. , 1997, Health policy.