The Nominal Group Technique
BSLE Conference – Oxford Brookes University
16 May 2007
Diana Williams
There are three main methods for establishing and developing consensus. These are
the Delphi method, consensus development panels and nominal group processes
Bowling (2002). The nominal group technique (NGT) was originally developed as an
organisational planning tool by Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson in 1971; but has
been used in higher education for various purposes including evaluation of student
experiences of teaching and learning (Chapple & Murphy, 1996; O’Neil &Jackson,
1981) and incorporating student’s perspectives into assessment processes (Farone
et al., 1998).
NGT is a structured process that seeks to draw quantitative estimates through a
qualitative approach. However, unlike other group interview techniques such as the
focus group and the Delphi method individuals are asked to work independently to
generate ideas rather than through interaction with each other. Hence the term
nominal group as ‘individuals work in the presence of others but do not verbally
interact’ (Zastrow & Navarre, 1977, p. 113). The individual ideas are then shared and
discussed with the purpose of clarification and evaluation. Members are asked to
prioritise the ideas individually and the aggregated rankings are collected.
The method used in the study was based on the one originally proposed by Delbecq,
Van de Ven and Gustafson in 1971. This can be used with groups of between 8 – 10
participants. Two to three groups should be enough to generate sufficient data.
1) Each individual was asked to generate ideas in response to a prompt question
'How can feedback on my assessments be improved?'
Individuals were asked to work silently and alone to write down ideas.
2) Ideas were then collected by the facilitator in a round-robin - each person in turn
reading out one idea, which the facilitator wrote up on a flip chart for all to view.
3) Each idea was discussed in order to seek clarification and elaboration by asking
for questions or comments from the group. The aim was to develop a shared
understanding of an idea but it also offered further rich data for later analysis. (This
part of the session was audio recorded.)
4) This process was repeated going around the group until all ideas were exhausted
and any duplicates eliminated.
5) Each response was assigned a letter and individuals were then asked to choose
up to 10 responses that they felt were the most important and rank them according to
their relative importance.
6) Rankings were collected from all participants, and aggregated. For example,
A prompt
B tutor contact
C feedback sheet
D indiv feedback
E follow up chat
Participant R
1
5
3
4
10
Participant S
2
4
5
8
Participant M
2
6
8
10
4
Further data analysis is possible from the recordings of the discussions:
For example, /I think some of the feedback could be more prompt/
/Especially umm that we don’t get our final mark till like two months [yeah] after we
finish/ / if we’re doing re-takes is a bit late/ [ahem]
Comments in brackets are from other group members.
The Nominal Group Technique
BSLE Conference – Oxford Brookes University
16 May 2007
Diana Williams
It is possible to have further discussion and voting. Results may be given back to
participants in order to stimulate further discussion, and perhaps a readjustment in
the overall rankings assigned to the various responses.
Reference List
Bowling, A. (2002) 2nd edition Research Methods in Health. Maidenhead, Open
University Press.
Chapple, M. & Murphy, R. (1996) The nominal group technique: extending the
evaluation of students ’ teaching and learning experiences, Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education, 21, 147–159.
Delbecq, A.L.; Van de Ven, A.H. and Gustafson, D.H. 1986. Group techniques for
program planning : a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Middleton, Wis. :
Green Briar Press.
Denscombe, M. (1995) Explorations in group interviews: an evaluation of a reflexive
and partisan approach, British Educational Research Journal, 21, 131–148.
Farone, M. C., Hall, E. W. & Costello, J. J. (1998) Postsecondary disability issues: an
inclusive identification strategy, Journal of Postsecondar y Education and Disability,
13, 35–45.
Gaskin, S. (2003) A guide to nominal group technique (NGT) in focus-group
research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, November, 27, (3), 342-347,
Jones, J. & Hunter, D. (1995) Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical
and health services research. British Medical Journal, 311, 376 - 380.
Lofland, J. & L. (1984). Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth.
Macphail, Ann. (2001) Nominal Group Technique: a useful method for working with
young people, British Educational Research Journal, 27, (2), 161-170.
May, N. & Pope, C. (2000) Assessing quality in qualitative research
British Medical Journal 320:50-52 (1 January)
O’Neil, M. & Jackson, L. (1983) Nominal group technique: a process for initiating
curriculum development in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), 129 138.
Zastrow, C. & Navarre, R. (1977) The nominal group: a new tool for making social
work education relevant, Journal of Education for Social Work, 13, 112–118.