Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Renal Drug Clearance: Comparison Between Renal Excretion Methods01:08

Renal Drug Clearance: Comparison Between Renal Excretion Methods

608
Renal clearance is a critical parameter encompassing kidney filtration, secretion, and reabsorption processes. It is calculated using a specific equation to determine the rate at which the kidneys clear a drug.
Renal clearance is often associated with the renal glomerular filtration rate (GFR), which represents the rate at which plasma is filtered through the glomeruli in the kidney. When drug reabsorption is minimal and there is no active secretion, renal clearance is closely related to the...
608
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II01:28

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

1.2K
The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts:
1.2K
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I01:30

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

1.1K
The Bradford Hill criteria are a group of principles that provide a framework to determine a causal relationship between a specific factor and a disease. There are nine criteria that are pivotal in assessing causality in epidemiological studies. Here's a closer look at Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality criteria with definitions and examples:
1.1K
The Scientific Method03:50

The Scientific Method

66.1K
Chemistry is an empirical science. Scientists often pose questions to understand the chemistry in everyday life and seek answers to these questions. To achieve this, scientists follow a definitive series of steps that together make up the Scientific Method. This approach involves making observations, asking questions, building a hypothesis, conducting experiments, analyzing results, and forming a conclusion. 
66.1K
Introduction to z Scores01:06

Introduction to z Scores

11.2K
A z score (or standardized value) is measured in units of the standard deviation. It tells you how many standard deviations the value x is above (to the right of) or below (to the left of) the mean, μ. Values of x that are larger than the mean have positive z scores, and values of x that are smaller than the mean have negative z scores. If x equals the mean, then x has a zero z score. It is important to note that the mean of the z scores is zero, and the standard deviation is one.
z scores...
11.2K
Introduction to z Scores01:05

Introduction to z Scores

1.3K
A z score (or standardized value) is measured in units of the standard deviation. It indicates how many standard deviations the value x is above (to the right of) or below (to the left of) the mean, μ. Values of x that are larger than the mean have positive z scores, and values of x that are smaller than the mean have negative z scores. If x equals the mean, then x has a zero z score. It is important to note that the mean of the z scores is zero, and the standard deviation is one.
z scores...
1.3K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Communication Experiences of Patients With Hearing Loss During Hemodialysis Treatment and the Potential Role of Communication Tools: A Qualitative Study.

Canadian journal of kidney health and disease·2026
Same author

Response shifting: a qualitative meta-synthesis on response shift.

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation·2026
Same author

The argument-based approach to validity: theory, assumptions, evidence, and consequences.

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation·2026
Same author

Sex and Gender Characteristics of Adults on Hemodialysis Experiencing Depression and Depressive Symptoms: A Scoping Review.

Canadian journal of kidney health and disease·2025
Same author

How Are People Undergoing Dialysis Expected to Benefit From Cognitive Behavioural Therapy? A Realist Analysis.

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy·2025
Same author

Hospital care does not meet the communication needs of patients with hearing loss: A qualitative study of patient experiences.

PloS one·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 31, 2026

A Modified Method for Intrathecal Catheterization in Rats
11:15

A Modified Method for Intrathecal Catheterization in Rats

Published on: February 14, 2025

3.0K

A Descriptive Comparison of Scoring Methods and Criteria for Evaluating Consensus in Modified Delphi Methods.

Marlo Salum1, Kara Schick-Makaroff1, Richard Sawatzky1,2,3,4

  • 1Faculty of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research = Revue Canadienne De Recherche En Sciences Infirmieres
|January 29, 2026
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Consensus analysis in modified Delphi studies yields varied results based on how participant groups and Likert scale responses are handled. Careful consideration of analysis methods is crucial for accurate interpretation and application in healthcare pathway development.

Keywords:
Modified Delphievaluating consensuspathway

More Related Videos

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
06:05

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time

Published on: February 19, 2021

1.8K
A Simple Composite Phenotype Scoring System for Evaluating Mouse Models of Cerebellar Ataxia
07:33

A Simple Composite Phenotype Scoring System for Evaluating Mouse Models of Cerebellar Ataxia

Published on: May 21, 2010

37.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 31, 2026

A Modified Method for Intrathecal Catheterization in Rats
11:15

A Modified Method for Intrathecal Catheterization in Rats

Published on: February 14, 2025

3.0K
The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
06:05

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time

Published on: February 19, 2021

1.8K
A Simple Composite Phenotype Scoring System for Evaluating Mouse Models of Cerebellar Ataxia
07:33

A Simple Composite Phenotype Scoring System for Evaluating Mouse Models of Cerebellar Ataxia

Published on: May 21, 2010

37.2K

Area of Science:

  • Healthcare research methodology
  • Patient and public involvement in research

Background:

  • Modified Delphi methods are common for developing healthcare pathways.
  • Input from people with lived experience (PWLE) and clinicians is vital.
  • Limited guidance exists for consensus analysis in these studies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To examine consensus outcomes using different scoring methods and criteria.
  • To compare results when participants are grouped together versus separately.
  • To inform best practices for consensus analysis in modified Delphi studies.

Main Methods:

  • Secondary analysis of Round 1 Delphi data (PWLE N=8, clinicians/others N=51).
  • Applied three scoring methods for percentage agreement on 68 statements, varying treatment of the 'not sure' response.
  • Compared consensus rates using ≥70%, ≥80%, and ≥90% agreement cutoffs.

Main Results:

  • Consensus outcomes differed based on participant grouping, scoring method, and cutoff criteria.
  • A combined group offered simplified consensus overview.
  • Separate groups provided more nuanced findings.

Conclusions:

  • Data analysis approaches significantly impact study conclusions and practical implications.
  • Investigators must align their chosen analysis method with study objectives.
  • Choosing the right method is critical for informing healthcare practice.