Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 9, 2026

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
Published on: August 29, 2025
Towards Evidence of Rigour in Empirical Deliberative Democratic Methods: Development and Piloting of the C-JuRI
Emma K Frost1, Yves Saint James Aquino1, Annette Braunack-Mayer1
1Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Background:
Deliberative democratic methods are increasingly being used to involve the public in health policy decision-making. These methods are rooted in deliberative democratic theory, which proposes the methods as democratic, inclusive and relevant ways to involve the public in policy decisions. Many practitioners have created methods for evaluating aspects of deliberative democratic engagement, but there are few practical guidelines for evaluating the quality of deliberative democratic processes as a whole. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a framework for evaluating the quality of Citizens' Juries based on the OECD's Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes.
Methods:
We developed the Citizens' Jury Rigour and Improvement (C-JuRI) framework based on the OECD's criteria for evaluating deliberative democratic processes. We justified each criterion with respect to the theoretical literature on deliberative democracy. We describe the process of piloting the framework on the artificial intelligence (AI) in Healthcare Jury-the first national Citizens' Jury on using AI in healthcare.
Results:
The C-JuRI framework was an effective tool for evaluating the AI in Healthcare Jury. Using the framework, we identified and reported on several strengths of the AI in Healthcare jury, as well as some opportunities to make changes to future processes to better work towards a deliberative democratic ideal. Post hoc additions to the framework may have assisted us in identifying more opportunities for improvement.
Conclusion:
The C-JuRI framework is a useful tool for researchers and practitioners aiming to design high-quality Citizens' Jury processes and for policymakers assessing the quality and rigour of deliberative democratic processes.
Patient Or Public Contribution:
This framework is designed to evaluate the quality of initiatives to involve the public in decision-making. The framework was piloted on a jury in which 28 members of the public deliberated about the use of AI in healthcare.
Related Concept Videos
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Ethics in Research
Reliability and Validity
Cognitivism
Previously dominated by behaviorism, which prioritized observable behaviors and largely ignored mental processes, psychology transformed in the 1950s. Cognitive psychologists argue that understanding how we think and process...
Critical Thinking
Colleges and universities are...
Experimental Designs

