Expert panels have been used extensively in the development of the Highway Safety Manual to extract research information from highway safety experts. While the panels have been used to recommend agendas for new and continuing research, their primary role has been to develop accident modification factors–-quantitative relationships between highway safety and various highway safety treatments. Because the expert panels derive quantitative information in a “qualitative” environment and because their findings can have significant impacts on highway safety investment decisions, the expert panel process should be described and critiqued. This paper is the first known written description and critique of the expert panel process and is intended to serve professionals wishing to conduct such panels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Highway Safety Manual.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.www.highwaysafetymanual.org.
HauerE.Observational Before–After Studies in Road Safety: Estimating the Effect of Highway and Traffic Engineering Measures on Road Safety.Elsevier Science, Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom, 1997.
4.
LyonC., OhJ., PersaudB., WashingtonS., and BaredJ.Empirical Investigation of Interactive Highway Safety Design Model Accident Prediction Algorithm: Rural Intersections. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1840, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 78–86.
5.
OhJ., LyonC., WashingtonS., PersaudB., and BaredJ.Validation of FHWA Crash Models for Rural Intersections: Lessons Learned. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1840, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 41–49.
6.
DissayanakeS., LuJ., ChuX., and TurnerP.Evaluation of Critical Highway Safety Needs of Special Population Groups.ITE Journal, Vol. 69, No. 9, Sept. 1999, pp. 28–35.
7.
ZografosK. G., and GiannouliI. M.Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of an Air Traffic Management System for Europe: Development and Application of Methodological Framework. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1744, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 52–64.
8.
SireliY., OzanE., KauffmannP., GuptaS., and KachrooP.A QFD-Based Decision Model for Application of ITS Technologies to Cockpit Weather Information Systems for General Aviation.Proc., 9th World Congress on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Chicago, Ill., 2002.
9.
FukuokaH.Reliability Evaluation Method for the Railway System: A Model for Complicated Dependency.Quarterly Report of Railway Technical Research Institute, Tokyo, 2002.
10.
HarwoodD. W., CouncilF. M., HauerE., HughesW. E., and VogtA.Prediction of the Expected Safety Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highways. Report FHWA-RD-99-207. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000.
11.
LordD., GeedipallyS. R., PersaudB. N., WashingtonS. P., van SchalkwykI., IvanJ. N., LyonC., and JonssonT.NCHRP Web-Only Document 126: Methodology to Predict the Safety Performance of Rural Multilane Highways.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w126.pdf.
12.
KulinskayaE., MorgenthalerS., and StaudteR.Meta Analysis: A Guide to Calibrating and Combining Statistical Evidence.John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, N.J., 2008.
13.
MelcherD. J., DixonK. K., WashingtonS., and Wu.C.-H.Feasibility of “Subjective” Engineering Assessments of Road Safety Improvements: Bayesian Analysis Development. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1758, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 36–43.
14.
WashingtonS., and Oh.J.Bayesian Methodology Incorporating Expert Judgment for Ranking Countermeasure Effectiveness Under Uncertainty: Example Applied to At-Grade Railroad Crossings in Korea.Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2006, pp. 234–247.
15.
RoweG., and WrightG.The Delphi Technique as a Forecasting Tool: Issues and Analysis.International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1999, pp. 353–375.
16.
RoweG., and WrightG.Expert Opinions in Forecasting: The Role of the Delphi Technique. In Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners (ArmstrongJ. S., ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Mass., 2001, pp. 125–144.
17.
RoweG., and WrightG.The Impact of Task Characteristics on the Performance of Structured Group Forecasting Techniques.International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 12, 1996, pp. 73–89.
18.
GreenK. C., ArmstrongJ., and GraefeS.Methods to Elicit Forecasts from Groups: Delphi and Prediction Markets Compared.Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, Fall 2007.
19.
AytonP., FerrellW., and StewartT.Commentaries on “The Delphi Technique as a Forecasting Tool: Issues and Analysis” by Rowe and Wright.International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1999, pp. 377–381.
