Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consensus Methods: Nominal Group Technique

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences

Abstract

Nominal group technique uses structured small group discussion to achieve consensus among participants and has been used for priority setting in healthcare and research. A facilitator asks participants to individually identify and contribute ideas to generate a list. The group discusses, elaborates, clarifies, and adds new ideas as appropriate. Each participant independently prioritizes the ideas, for example, by voting, rating, or ranking. The facilitator may summarize the scores to ascertain the overall group priorities. This method is useful for generating a diverse range of views and ideas in a structured manner, prevents participants from dominating the discussion, and promotes input from all members.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen J, Dyas J, Jones M. Building consensus in health care: a guide to using the nominal group technique. Br J Community Nurs. 2004;9(3):110–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinal F, Hughes R, Dunckley M, Addington-Hall J. What is important to measure in the last months and weeks of life?: a modified nominal group study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2006;43(4):393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers M, Kirwan J, Tugwell P, Beaton D, Bingham III C, Conaghan P, et al. The OMERACT handbook [online]. OMERACT. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond CM, Watson MC. The development of evidence-based guidelines for over-the-counter treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. Pharm World Sci. 2003;25(4):177–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney O, McIntosh J, Worth A. The use of the nominal group technique in research with community nurses. J Adv Nurs. 1996;23(5):1024–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapelle O, Metlzer D, Zhang Y, Grinspan P. Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management. Hong Kong. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho Y, Sautenet B, Rangan G, Craig JC, Ong ACM, Chapman A, et al. Standardised outcomes in nephrology—polycystic kidney disease (SONG-PKD): study protocol for establishing a core outcome set in polycystic kidney disease. Trials. 2017;18(1):560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton JD, Ritchie JRB, Zaichkowsky J. The nominal group technique: its potential for consumer research. J Consum Res. 1980;7(3):308–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan K, Oliver S. James Lind alliance guidebook (version 5). Southampton: James Lind Alliance; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott Foresman Company. Glenview, Illinois; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dening KH, Jones L, Sampson EL. Preferences for end-of-life care: a nominal group study of people with dementia and their family carers. Palliat Med. 2013;27(5):409–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewar A, White M, Posade ST, Dillon W. Using nominal group technique to assess chronic pain, patients’ perceived challenges and needs in a community health region. Health Expect. 2003;6(1):44–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott TR, Shewchuk RM. Using the nominal group technique to identify the problems experienced by persons living with severe physical disabilities. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2002;9(2):65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghisoni M, Wilson CA, Morgan K, Edwards B, Simon N, Langley E, et al. Priority setting in research: user led mental health research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, et al. Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2013;7:133–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell M, Tong A, Wong G, Craig JC, Howard K. Important outcomes for kidney transplant recipients: a nominal group and qualitative study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(2):186–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells LM, Chalmers JR, Cowdell F, Ratib S, Santer M, Thomas KS. ‘When it goes back to my normal I suppose’: a qualitative study using online focus groups to explore perceptions of ‘control’ among people with eczema and parents of children with eczema in the UK. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings H, Rapport FL, Wright S, Doel MA, Wainwright P. Obtaining consensus regarding patient-centred professionalism in community pharmacy: nominal group work activity with professionals, stakeholders and members of the public. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010;18(3):149–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings H, Rapport F, Wright S, Doel M, Jones A. Obtaining consensus about patient-centred professionalism in community nursing: nominal group work activity with professionals and the public. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(11):2429–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(7001):376–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight SR, Metcalfe L, O’Donoghue K, Ball ST, Beale A, Beale W, et al. Defining priorities for future research: results of the UK kidney transplant priority setting partnership. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0162136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramish Campbell M, Meier A, Carr C, Enga Z, James AS, Reedy J, et al. Health behavior changes after colon cancer: a comparison of findings from face-to-face and on-line focus groups. Fam Community Health. 2001;24(3):88–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavigne M, Birken CS, Maguire JL, Straus S, Laupacis A. Priority setting in paediatric preventive care research. Arch Dis Child. 2017;102(8):748–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manera KE, Tong A, Craig JC, Brown EA, Brunier G, Dong J, et al. Standardized outcomes in nephrology-peritoneal dialysis (SONG-PD): study protocol for establishing a core outcome set in PD. Perit Dial Int. 2017;37(6):639–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Using the nominal group technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Serv Outcome Res Methodol. 2014;14(3):92–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Consumers and carers versus pharmacy staff: do their priorities for Australian pharmacy services align? Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2015;8(5):411–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):655–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Shewchuk R, Elliot TR, Richards S. Nominal group technique: a process for identifying diabetes self-care issues among patients and caregivers. Diabetes Educ. 2000;26(2):305–10. 12, 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter M, Gordon S, Hamer P. The nominal group technique: a useful consensus methodology in physiotherapy research. N Z J Physiother. 2004;32(2):70–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees SE, Chadha R, Donovan LE, Guitard AL, Koppula S, Laupacis A, et al. Engaging patients and clinicians in establishing research priorities for gestational diabetes mellitus. Can J Diabetes. 2017;41(2):156–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolls KD, Elliott D. Using consensus methods to develop clinical practice guidelines for intensive care: the intensive care collaborative project. Aust Crit Care. 2008;21(4):200–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupert DJ, Poehlman JA, Hayes JJ, Ray SE, Moultrie RR. Virtual versus in-person focus groups: comparison of costs, recruitment, and participant logistics. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(3):e80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson T, Morris M, Calnan M, Richards P, Hewlett S. Patient perspective of measuring treatment efficacy: the rheumatoid arthritis patient priorities for pharmacologic interventions outcomes. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62(5):647–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sav A, McMillan SS, Kelly F, King MA, Whitty JA, Kendall E, et al. The ideal healthcare: priorities of people with chronic conditions and their carers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SONG Initiative. The SONG handbook version 1.0. Sydney; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Synnot A, Hill S, Summers M, Taylor M. Comparing face-to-face and online qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis. Qual Health Res. 2014;24(3):431–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tates K, Zwaanswijk M, Otten R, van Dulmen S, Hoogerbrugge PM, Kamps WA, et al. Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: examples from paediatric oncology. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas C, Wootten A, Robinson P. The experiences of gay and bisexual men diagnosed with prostate cancer: results from an online focus group. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013;22(4):522–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trickey H, Harvey I, Wilcock G, Sharp D. Formal consensus and consultation: a qualitative method for development of a guideline for dementia. Quality in Health Care : QHC. 1998;7(4):192–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart-Secord R, Craig JC, Hemmelgarn B, Tam-Tham H, Manns B, Howell M, et al. Patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in hemodialysis: an international nominal group technique study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(3):444–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vander Laenen F. Not just another focus group: making the case for the nominal group technique in criminology. Crime Science. 2015;4(1):5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varga-Atkins T, McIsaac J, Willis I. Focus group meets nominal group technique: an effective combination for student evaluation? Innov Educ Teach Int. 2017;54(4):289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, Bion J, Black N. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ. 2000;320(7240):976–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams A, Sell D, Oulton K, Wilson N, Wray J, Gibson F. Identifying research priorities with nurses at a tertiary children’s hospital in the United Kingdom. Child Care Health Dev. 2017;43(2):211–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodyatt CR, Finneran CA, Stephenson R. In-person versus online focus group discussions: a comparative analysis of data quality. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(6):741–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. WHO handbook for guideline development. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yudkin JS, Lipska KJ, Montori VM. The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ. 2011;343.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Karine Manera, Camilla Hanson, Talia Gutman & Allison Tong

  2. Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia

    Karine Manera, Camilla Hanson, Talia Gutman & Allison Tong

Authors
  1. Karine Manera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Camilla Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Talia Gutman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allison Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karine Manera .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Health, Locked Bag 1797, CA.02.35, Western Sydney Univ, School of Science & Health, Locked Bag 1797, CA.02.35, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

    Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Manera, K., Hanson, C., Gutman, T., Tong, A. (2018). Consensus Methods: Nominal Group Technique. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_100-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_100-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation