The Extract of Non-Financial Factors by Delphi Method - EuroJournals

European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences
ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 28 (2011)
© EuroJournals, Inc. 2011
http://www.eurojournals.com
The Extract of Non-Financial Factors by Delphi Method
Ataollah Mohammadi Malgharni
PHD Student Accounting in Multimedia University in Malaysia
E-mail: afsarata@yahoo.com
Nakha Ratnam Soomasundaram
Faulty of Management Multimedia University
Saravanan Muthaiyah
Faulty of Management Multimedia University
Abstract
One of the most proper procedures to reach purposes and targets in the studies is the
Delphi methodology and the reason that differ this method from other methods is its
ability to present a procedure to solicit and get consensus by professionals in the extent
of emerging subject as while ameliorating problematic group developments like bias
and pressure (Hasson et al. 2000, van Zolingen and Klaassen 2003, Landeta 2006). In
the below research, the most important and significant non-financial items that may
influence the investors’ decision making and judgment highly, is derived from experts.
Items such as Variables of non-financial obtained, applying some Functions as relevant,
profitability, influence on investor decision, dependability, result in the sale, effect in
the cost. Their outlook regarding to the potential impact of this on the investors’
judgments is asked from them. Experts identified in field financial in the three rounds, 3
major variables consist of: customer satisfaction, employees’ satisfaction, firm internal
process extracted of among 12 non-financial performance variables in an international
conference in Malaysia. In the present research we tried to illustrate the importance of
Delphi method as a significance technique that can be applied in fields like
management, accounting, financial.
Keywords: Delphi method-non-financial performance-Malaysia-non-financial
variables
Introduction to the Delphi Method
The Rand Corporation developed The Delphi technique in the 1950’s. we define it as a technique
for the “systematic solicitation and collation of decisions on a particular subject in the course of
some sequential questionnaires which are designed charily and interspersed with summarized data
and feedback of opinions obtained from previous results” (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson,
1975, p.10). The advantages of this technique are its usefulness to do surveys with skilful people in
a broad area and it doesn’t need contributors to gather in a particular place or even see each other.
In order to obtain several purposes, we can apply The Delphi technique in planning
situations. 1. We can resolve or progress a set probable program options. 2. We can search or
interpret fundamental supposition or data which cases various decisions. 3. We can search data that
may make a situation on the part of the respondent group. 4. We can associate up to date judgments
on a subject spanning a wide range of disciplines. 5. We can educate the respondent group as to the
varied and interrelated characteristic of the topic.(Delbecq et al., 1975, p. 11)
We should select some of variables that are more significant according to those experts
which are known in researches. Though, in the present research we have selected 12 non-financial

62 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 28 (2011)
performance variables and the selected variables in company. Thus, we have to select a few nonfinancial
performance variables that are more considerable and that more may influence the
investors’ decision making and judgment.
Literature Review
In synthesizing current literature that has sought to address this void (Hasson et al. 2000, Keeney et
al 2006, Landeta 2006), the Delphi progression includes:
1. A number of participants who are expert and/or specialized in the topic being considered,
and they are chosen because of mentioned features;
2. A course that involves numerous iterations or repetitions and the judgments of experts are
explored, consensus is achieved, and significance is verified by those repetitions;
3. A coordinator that allows experts to show and interact by the questionnaire instrument,
limits extraneous data, and insures anonymity, control the feedback.
4. Experts will make the data and it will be obtained afterward contributes to the ultimate
respond or estimate.Delbecq, et al. (1975) illustrates the Delphi method as the below
procedure:
1. Make some questionnaires. Normally three or four questionnaires Mailed to the
respondents are applied in order to achieve the essential information.
2. Recognize, choose, and contact the respondents. Regularly we apply a nominating process
whereby key individuals may nominate someone with the expertise to take part in the
research.
3. Choose a sample size. Thirty is frequently applied as a higher bound as a consequence of
limited numbers of new opinions, three or four people is almost certainly too few, and
frequently between ten and twenty people is logical.
4. Develop the primary questionnaire, send it to the respondents, and get the results. For
instance, the questionnaire may have ten to fifteen unlimited questions.
5. Examine the information. Frequency or other criteria can set or sort the result of the
questions.
6. Develop the primary questionnaire, send it to the respondents, and get the results. This one
is developed by the primary questioner results. It may ask respondents to assess the
answers which are sorted and then rate them based on a scale.
7. Examine the results. This examination must tally the votes for each of the responses;
resolve various statistics such as mean, mode, standard deviation, and so on for each
response; and finally, summarize additional responses for the next round.
8. Develop the primary questionnaire, send it to the respondents, and get the results. Provide
the respondents with the results of the second round and request them whether they tend to
reassess their own second round replies.
9. Examine the results. Conclude whether there is a consensus.
10. Complete the final report (pp. 87-107).
The Delphi technique is an iterative method which is applied in gathering and distilling the
expert’s decisions via a set of questionnaires interspersed with feedback. The reason for developing
the questioners is the requirment to concentrate on different subjects, opportunities, solutions, or
forecasts. The questioners are designed according to the results obtained from last questionnaire.In
the time when the questions are answered, the process would be discontinued, for instance, in the
cases that consensus is reached, theoretical saturation is achieved, or when adequate data has been
replaced.The source of Delphi technique is in the American business community, and has since
been broadly recognized all through the world in various industry sectors such as business,
education, data technology, transportation,…( Delbecq, et al. (1975)
The way that the Delphi method has been applied can be an evident of its flexibility. The
Delphi method is a technique to set a group communication process in order to facilitate group
problem solving and to make models (Linstone & Turloff, 1975).We can apply the Delphi method
as a decision-aiding or forecasting tool (Rowe & Wright, 1999), and use it in planning problems
and administration (Delbeq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). In the case when we don’t have
enough knowledge regarding to a problem or phenomena, we can apply this method.It is also useful

63 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 28 (2011)
in solving problems that not lend themselves to precise analytical method but relatively can benefit
from the subjective judgments of individuals on a collective foundation (Adler & Ziglio, 1996) and
to concentrate their collective human aptitude on the problem at hand (Linstone & Turloff, 1975).
Delphi method is beneficial in examining what does not yet exist (Czinkota & Ronkainen, 1997;
Skulmoski & Hartman 2002).The Delphi technique is an established and very flexible research
method applied in several studies arenas by researchers through the globe. We have to consider the
sources of the Delphi method in order to understand its diversity in application.
Methodology
Hypothetically, the Delphi method can be incessantly iterated until consensus is determined to have
been obtained. though, Cyphert and Gant (1971), Brooks (1979), Ludwig (1994, 1997), and Custer,
Scarcella, and Stewart (1999) indicated that two or three iterations are often adequate to gather the
required data and to achieve a consensus in most cases.The most proper method to obtain purposes
and objectives is Delphi methodology, because it prepares a procedure to search and achieve
consensus with experts on an up-and-coming matter while ameliorating problematic group
procedures like bias and pressure (Hasson et al. 2000, van Zolingen and Klaassen 2003, Landeta
2006). Although the following conversation, it shows guidelines for more than three iterations, so
that it can be helpful for those who apply the Delphi method as a data collection way when it is
determined that extra iterations beyond three are required or valuable.
Round 1
In this initial part of the questionnaire we need their states, viewpoint and plans regarding each of
the 12 functions (non-financial performance) of the list. In the primary round of the procedure, each
member of the expert panel was asked to react to five open ended questions for each of 12 variables
non-financial.
F1 = customer satisfaction
F2 = creativity
F3 = innovation
F4 = job satisfaction
F5 = organization culture
F6 = competitive stance
F7 = motivation
F8 = organization commitment
F9 = organization behavior
10 = productivity (Internal Business Processes)
11 = research and development
12 = efficiency
All of the members of the expert panel replied to these open ended questions, and the results
received were compiled based on the question number.Most of the respondents provided at least
one full typewritten page of feedback. Qualitative analysis of the information started with the
process of open coding. This process engages grouping comparable results together as themes
emerge and affixing labels or codes (Neuman 1994).
Appendage 1
Section 1
Questions used in this round were as follows:
Function F1: Customer Satisfaction
Please, comment on the whole of Function 1 (F1: customer satisfaction) when answering the
following questions:

64 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 28 (2011)
1. Do the elements of F1 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F1 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F1?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F1?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F1 as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)
Function F2: Creativity
Please, comment on the whole of Function 2 (F2: creativity) when answering the following
questions:
1. Do the elements of F2 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F2 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F2?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F2?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F2 as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)
Function F3: Innovation
Please, comment on the whole of Function 3 (F3: innovation) when answering the following
questions:
1. Do the elements of F3 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F3 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F3?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F3?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F3 as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)
Function F4: Job Satisfaction
Please, comment on the whole of Function 4(F4: job satisfaction) when answering the following
questions:
1. Do the elements of F4 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F4 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F4?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F4?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F4as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)

65 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 28 (2011)
Function F5: Organization Culture
Please, comment on the whole of Function 5 (F5: organization culture) when answering the
following questions:
1. Do the elements of F5 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F5 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F5?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F5?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F5 as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)
Function F6: Competitive Stance
Please, comment on the whole of Function 6 (F6: competitive stance) when answering the
following questions:
1. Do the elements of F6 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F6 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F6?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F6?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F6 as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)
Function F7: Motivation
Please, comment on the whole of Function 7 (F7: motivation) when answering the following
questions:
1. Do the elements of F7 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F7 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F7?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F7?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F7 as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)
Function F8: Organization Commitment
Please, comment on the whole of Function 8 (F8: organization commitment) when answering the
following questions:
1. Do the elements of F8 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F8 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F8?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F8?

66 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 28 (2011)
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F8 as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)
Function F9: Organization Behavior
Please, comment on the whole of Function 9 (F9: organization behavior) when answering the
following questions:
1. Do the elements of F9 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F9 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F9?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F9?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F9 as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)
Function F10: Productivity
Please, comment on the whole of Function 10 (F10: productivity) when answering the following
questions:
1. Do the elements of F10 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F10 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F10?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F10?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F10 as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)
Function F11: Research and Development
Please, comment on the whole of Function 11 (F11: research and development) when answering the
following questions:
1. Do the elements of F11 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F11 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F11?
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F11?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F11 as the application of nonfinancial
information?(please write a short comment)
Function F12: Efficiency
Please, comment on the whole of Function 12 (F12: efficiency) when answering the following
questions:
1. Do the elements of F12 fully cover the non financial information of companies for
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short Comment).
2. Do you think that it would be feasible to implement F12 as important information in
investor’s judgment and making decision? (Please state if you agree or not and write a
short comment).
3. Is there anything missing within F12?

67 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 28 (2011)
4. What is over represented and/or should be excluded from F12?
5. In your opinion, what are Weaknesses and strengths F12 as the application of nonfinancial
information? (please write a short comment).
The Summary of the answer by Participation
Number Q1=cove Q2=feasibility Q3=missing Q4= Over
present/exclude
F1 18 yes- c 18 yes f 20 yes O/e -yes18
7 no -c 7 no -f 5 no Non o/e 7
F2 11yes-c 15 yes f 12 yes 0/e-yes 14
14no-c 10 no-f 13 no Non o/e 11
F3 13yes-c 10 yes f 11 yes 0/e-yes 13
12 no-c 15 no-f 14 no Non o/e 12
F4 17yes-c 16 yes f 17 yes 0/e-yes 15
8no-c 9 no-f 8 no Non o/e 10
F5 15yes-c 12 yes f 9 yes 0/e-yes 11
10-no-c 13 no-f 16 no Non o/e 14
F6 15yes-c 11 yes f 8 yes 0/e-yes 12
10no-c 14 no-f 17 no Non o/e 13
F7 14-yes-c 16 yes f 11 yes 0/e-yes 8
11-no-c 9 no-f 14 no Non o/e 17
F8 17yes-c 15 yes f 12 yes 0/e-yes 11
8no-c 10 no-f 13 no Non o/e 14
F9 15yes-c 12yes f 11 yes 0/e-yes 10
10no-c 13 no-f 14 no Non o/e 15
F10 17-yes-c 18 yes f 16 yes 0/e-yes 17
8no-c 7 no-f 9 no Non o/e 8
F11 12yes-c 15 yes f 14 yes 0/e-yes 15
13no-c 10 no-f 11 no Non o/e 10
F12 11-yes-c 9 yes f 11 yes 0/e-yes 15
14no-c 16 no-f 14 no Non o/e 10
Descriptive
Q5=Weaknesses and strengths
23-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
14-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
16-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
19-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
17-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
15-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
18-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
14-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
15-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
21-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
13-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
14-It will be increase investors
information for judgment
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Variance
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Std.
Error
Statistic Statistic
number 25 24 1 25 325 13.00 1.472 7.360 54.167
F1 25 2 3 5 97 3.88 .145 .726 .527
F10 25 3 2 5 89 3.56 .164 .821 .673
F4 25 1 3 4 84 3.36 .098 .490 .240
F8 25 3 2 5 69 2.76 .156 .779 .607
F11 25 2 2 4 68 2.72 .147 .737 .543
F7 25 2 2 4 67 2.68 .150 .748 .560
F2 25 3 1 4 66 2.64 .162 .810 .657
F5 25 3 1 4 64 2.56 .142 .712 .507
F9 25 3 1 4 63 2.52 .165 .823 .677
F3 25 3 1 4 63 2.52 .224 1.122 1.260
F6 25 3 1 4 61 2.44 .174 .870 .757
F12 25 3 1 4 59 2.36 .162 .810 .657
Valid N
(listwise)
25
Round 2
In the second step of the questioner, we request additional thorough questions regarding to the
particular competencies inside the list.A second questionnaire is given to each of the contributors
and should review the items which the investigators have summarized them according to the results
provided in the first section. We have asked for more opinions regarding to these competencies as
the examination previously carried out highlighted that they were less repeatedly reported in the
reference curricula. Consequently, we identify the areas of disagreement and agreement (Ludwig,

68 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 28 (2011)
1994, p. 54-55).Frequency or similarity of response can categorize the first sections results, so that
the number to a manageable level will reduce but yet keeping the essential meaning of the
responses. We asked participants to rate the categorized results of part 1 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1
being “strongly not important” and 5 being “strongly important.” Subsequently, we, the following
questions are associated with the competencies that have been least frequently reported in the
reference curricula.
1. Please rate the Importance of F1-12 within an up-to-date non-financial performance
(applying a scale of 1-5. Where 1=strongly not important; 2= not important; 3=somewhat
important 4=important 5=strongly important).
2. Please write a brief remark on the score you gave.
Appendage 2
Section 2
Descriptive
[DataSet1] C:\Documents and Settings\admin\Desktop\delfi.sav
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean
Std.
Deviation Variance
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Std.
Error
Statistic Statistic
F1 25 14 10 24 465 18.60 .603 3.014 9.083
F10 25 25 11 36 446 17.84 1.055 5.273 27.807
F4 25 13 9 22 435 17.40 .611 3.055 9.333
F11 25 16 10 26 433 17.32 .885 4.423 19.560
F8 25 15 9 24 427 17.08 .614 3.068 9.410
F5 25 11 12 23 426 17.04 .590 2.951 8.707
F12 25 23 9 32 425 17.00 1.010 5.050 25.500
F6 25 14 11 25 420 16.80 .658 3.291 10.833
F3 25 14 8 22 410 16.40 .630 3.149 9.917
F9 25 12 9 21 381 15.24 .620 3.099 9.607
F2 25 10 10 20 363 14.52 .554 2.771 7.677
F7 25 14 7 21 340 13.60 .586 2.930 8.583
Valid N
(listwise)
25
Round 3
Yet again we sent the similar questionnaire for results with mean and std. Deviation section 2 and
we want to again answer whether their ideas vary or not according to other response . Our reason
for setting this section is determining whether there was a consensus. Through determining the
mode of each response in section 2, we could analyze them. We requested participants to appraise
their response and the modal response, reply again applying the same rating scale, and add any
opinion about the responses. Furthermore, in this part we request experts’ comments regarding to
the use of the List of Functions as the core knowledge, skills and thoughts of curricula for nonfinancial
performance. We solicit their opinion concerning the potential effect of this on the
investors’ judgment. In this part the Delphi penalties get a chance to make more amplification of
both the data and their judgments of the relative importance of the items. However, we expect only
a slight increase in the degree of consensus when it is compared to the previous part ( Anglin, 1991;
Jacobs, 1996).In this section, participants have the last chance to revise their judgments.
We should mention that the number of Delphi iterations rely on the degree of consensus
made by the investigators and can be various from three to five (Delbecq, Van de Ven, Gustafson,
1975; Ludwig, 1994). Jones and Twiss (1978) indicate that the principal investigators of a Delphi
research must identify and choose the most proper individuals throughout a nomination procedure.
Commonly, the pool of choosing potential Delphi items is expected to apply positional leaders
(Kaplan, 1971; Ludwig, 1994), to follow a review of authors of publications in the literature
(Meyer, 1992; Miller, 2001).

69 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 28 (2011)
Appendage 3
Section 3
Descriptive
[DataSet1] C:\Documents and Settings\admin\Desktop\section 3.sav
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Variance
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Std.
Error
Statistic Statistic
F10 25 21 15 36 496 19.84 .844 4.220 17.807
F1 25 13 12 25 493 19.72 .704 3.518 12.377
F4 25 10 14 24 474 18.96 .474 2.371 5.623
F11 25 16 10 26 392 15.68 .741 3.705 13.727
F6 25 10 10 20 381 15.24 .592 2.962 8.773
F3 25 15 6 21 380 15.20 .603 3.014 9.083
F5 25 14 7 21 370 14.80 .645 3.227 10.417
F9 25 11 9 20 369 14.76 .659 3.295 10.857
F8 25 13 8 21 367 14.68 .632 3.159 9.977
F2 25 10 10 20 363 14.52 .554 2.771 7.677
F12 25 12 7 19 347 13.88 .698 3.492 12.193
F7 25 12 5 17 318 12.72 .552 2.762 7.627
Valid N
(listwise)
25
Conclusion
Experts identified in field financial in the three parts; 3 major variables contain: customer
satisfaction, employees’ satisfaction, firm internal process extracted of through 12 non-financial
performances in an international conference in Malaysia. The above research illustrated the
significance of the Delphi method which can apply in management, accounting and financial areas.
In the present research we requested experts to identify major and vital non-financial factors that
have higher influence on the investors’ decision making and judgment. According to the List of
Functions as relevant, effect in investor decision, reliability, effect in the sale, effect in the cost, we
can extract the Variables of non-financial. Financial and accounting researchers and managers of
companies can use the results of the above research. The Delphi technique can help managers to
realize when are going to disclosure non-financial performance, and also help them to achieve their
purposes of better communication. The point that we get from this research is that Delphi method is
appropriate to select and extract of non-financial performance variables and all the researchers and
manager can get use of it in order to better understand and apply this method.
Reference
1] Cyphert, F. R., & Gant, W. L. (1971). The Delphi technique: A case study. Phi Delta Kappan,
52, 272-273.
2] Brooks, K. W. (1979). Delphi technique: Expanding applications. North Central Association
Quarterly, 54 (3), 377-385.
3] Custer, R. L., Scarcella, J. A., & Stewart, B. R. (1999). The modified Delphi technique: A
rotational modification. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 15 (2), 1-10.
4] Anglin, G. L. (1991). Instructional technology past, present and future. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited Inc.
5] Jacobs, J. M. (1996). Essential assessment criteria for physical education teacher education
programs: A Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University,
Morgantown.
6] Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, Inc.
7] Jones, H., & Twiss, B. C. (1978). Forecasting technology for planning decision. London, UK:
Macmillan Press Ltd.
8] Kaplan, L. M. (1971). The use of the Delphi method in organizational communication: A case
study. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

70 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences - Issue 28 (2011)
9] Meyer, J. H. (1992). Rethinking the outlook of colleges whose roots have been in agriculture.
Davis, CA: University of California.
10] Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi
survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22, 351-362.
11] Hasson, F., S. Keeney, and H. P. McKenna( 2000)” Research guidelines for the Delphi survey
technique” Journal of Advanced Nursing 32 (4):1008-1015.
12] Van Zolingen, S. J., and C. A. Klaassen( 2003)” Selection process in a Delphi study about key
qualifications in senior secondary vocational education” Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 70:317-340.
13] Landeta, J ( 2006) “Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 73:467-482.
14] Keeny, S., F. Hasson, and H. P. McKenna. 2006. Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using
the Delphi technique in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 53(2):205-212.
15] Neuman, L. 1994. Social research methods. Second edition. Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA.
16] Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program
planning. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Co.
17] Dalkey, N. C., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the
use of experts. Management Science, 9 (3), 458-467.
18] Dalkey, N. C. (1969). An experimental study of group opinion. Futures, 1 (5), 408-426.
19] Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). Introduction. In H. A. Linstone, & M. Turoff (Eds.). The
Delphi method: Techniques and applications (pp. 3-12). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
20] Lindeman, C. A. (1981). Priorities within the health care system: A Delphi survey. Kansas City,
MO: American Nurses’ Association.
21] Martino, J. P. (1983). Technological forecasting for decision making. New York: North-
Holland.
22] Young, S. J., & Jamieson, L. M. (2001). Delivery methodology of the Delphi: A comparison of
two approaches. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19 (1), 42-58.
23] Linstone, H. & Turloff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. London,
UK: Addison-Wesley.
24] Adler, M. & Ziglio. E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi Method and its application to
social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
25] Czinkota, M. & Ronkainen (1997). International business and trade in the next decade: Report
from a Delphi study. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4), 827 - 844.
26] Skulmoski, G. & Hartman, F. (2002). The Delphi method: Researching what does not exist
(yet). Proceedings of the International Research Network on Organization by Projects, IRNOP
V Conference, Renesse, The Netherlands.
27] Ludwig, B. G. (1994). Internationalizing Extension: An exploration of the characteristics
evident in a state university Extension system that achieves internationalization. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.