Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Survey Methodology›Remote Delphi Technique — Online Expert Consensus Method
Process / pipelineData collection

Remote Delphi Technique — Online Expert Consensus Method

Remote Delphi Technique · Also known as: online Delphi, e-Delphi, virtual Delphi, distributed Delphi

The Remote Delphi Technique applies the structured iterative consensus process of the classic Delphi method entirely through remote communication channels — email, web-based survey platforms, or dedicated collaboration tools — eliminating the need for geographic co-presence. Experts complete successive questionnaire rounds asynchronously, receiving anonymised statistical summaries of the group's prior responses before each new round, until a pre-defined consensus threshold is reached.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Remote Delphi Technique
Delphi TechniqueOnline SurveyRemote Focus GroupRemote Semi-structured I…

When to use it

Use the Remote Delphi Technique when you need structured expert consensus on topics where evidence is incomplete or contested, and when experts are geographically dispersed or scheduling synchronous meetings is impractical. It suits health sciences, policy research, education, and technology foresight. It is appropriate when anonymity is valued — to prevent dominant voices from skewing results — and when three or more iterative feedback rounds are feasible within your timeline. Do not use it when you need interactional deliberation (a nominal group technique or focus group is better), when your potential panel is too small (fewer than 7–10 experts undermines the consensus logic), or when a rapid single-round survey will suffice. The method demands sustained engagement across multiple rounds; if drop-out rates are likely to be high, consider face-to-face alternatives.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Enables global or widely dispersed panels without travel costs or scheduling constraints.
  • Anonymity reduces social desirance bias and prevents high-status experts from dominating the consensus process.
  • Asynchronous design gives experts adequate reflection time, improving response quality compared to real-time group settings.
  • Iterative feedback mechanism progressively converges group opinion while preserving individual autonomy.
  • Online administration simplifies data collection, storage, and automated reminders, reducing administrative burden.
  • Produces a documented, transparent audit trail of how consensus was reached across rounds.
Limitations
  • Panel attrition across multiple rounds can threaten validity if drop-outs are non-random.
  • Asynchronous format eliminates spontaneous dialogue and deep deliberation that can reveal nuanced disagreements.
  • Consensus thresholds are researcher-defined conventions, not statistical inference — the method does not prove that the consensus position is correct.
  • Technology access and digital literacy requirements may exclude some potential expert panellists.
  • Results are dependent on panel composition; a poorly selected panel produces consensus among non-experts.

Frequently asked

How is the Remote Delphi different from a regular online survey?

An online survey collects data in a single round with no feedback to respondents. The Remote Delphi runs two or more rounds: after each round, experts receive anonymised summaries of the whole panel's responses and are invited to reconsider their ratings. This iterative feedback — not the online delivery channel — is what defines the Delphi technique and produces structured convergence toward consensus.

How many rounds are needed?

Two to four rounds are standard. The process continues until either the pre-specified consensus criterion is met across items or ratings stabilise between rounds (i.e., the panel's collective position no longer shifts). Running a fourth or fifth round rarely adds value and accelerates drop-out.

What size should the expert panel be?

There is no universal rule, but panels of 10 to 30 experts are most common. The Remote Delphi's asynchronous format makes larger panels logistically feasible; however, the consensus statistics become meaningful only with at least 7–10 active respondents per round. Panel size should be determined by the diversity of expertise required, not merely by convenience.

How do I define consensus?

Consensus criteria must be specified before data collection. Common approaches include a median rating above a threshold on a Likert or Likert-type scale (e.g., ≥ 7 on a 9-point scale), combined with a narrow spread (e.g., interquartile range ≤ 2). Percentage agreement (e.g., ≥ 70% of panellists rating an item in the top tertile) is an alternative. The choice should be justified and reported transparently.

Is the Remote Delphi the same as a nominal group technique?

No. The nominal group technique brings participants together — typically face-to-face or synchronously — for structured idea generation and group voting in a single session. The Remote Delphi is asynchronous, anonymous, and iterative across multiple rounds conducted over days or weeks. The two methods are complementary: nominal groups enable interactive deliberation while Delphi is preferred when anonymity, remote participation, or time for reflection is important.

Sources

  1. Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01567.x ↗
  2. Donohoe, H., Stellefson, M., & Tennant, B. (2012). Advantages and limitations of the e-Delphi technique: Implications for health education researchers. American Journal of Health Education, 43(1), 38–46. DOI: 10.1080/19325037.2012.10599216 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Remote Delphi Technique. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/survey-methodology/remote-delphi-technique

Related methods

Delphi TechniqueOnline SurveyRemote Focus GroupRemote Semi-structured Interview

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Delphi TechniqueSurvey Methodology↔ compare
  • Online SurveySurvey Methodology↔ compare
  • Remote Focus GroupSurvey Methodology↔ compare
  • Remote Semi-structured InterviewSurvey Methodology↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Similar methods

Online Delphi TechniqueDelphi TechniqueDelphi MethodTelephone-assisted Delphi TechniqueMobile Delphi TechniqueFace-to-face Delphi TechniqueMulti-source Delphi TechniqueTriangulated Delphi Technique

Related reference concepts

Clinical Practice Guideline DevelopmentRequirements ElicitationUser Research MethodsCertainty of Evidence RatingTelehealth and Remote Care TechnologySystematic Review

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Remote Delphi Technique (Remote Delphi Technique). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/survey-methodology/remote-delphi-technique · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Olaf Helmer and Norman Dalkey (RAND Corporation; classic Delphi); e-Delphi adapted by various methodologists from late 1990s onward
Year
1950s (classic Delphi); remote/e-Delphi from late 1990s
Type
Iterative expert consensus technique — remote administration
DataType
Structured questionnaire responses, numerical ratings, open-ended comments from remote expert panels
Subfamily
Data collection
Related methods
Delphi TechniqueOnline SurveyRemote Focus GroupRemote Semi-structured Interview
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account