title: Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: VI. Quantitative properties of human collective opinion.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Crowdsourcing has become an increasingly important tool to address many problems - from government elections in democracies, stock market prices, to modern online tools such as TripAdvisor or Internet Movie Database (IMDB). The CHNRI method (the acronym for the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative) for setting health research priorities has crowdsourcing as the major component, which it uses to generate, assess and prioritize between many competing health research ideas.
  
  
  METHODS
  We conducted a series of analyses using data from a group of 91 scorers to explore the quantitative properties of their collective opinion. We were interested in the stability of their collective opinion as the sample size increases from 15 to 90. From a pool of 91 scorers who took part in a previous CHNRI exercise, we used sampling with replacement to generate multiple random samples of different size. First, for each sample generated, we identified the top 20 ranked research ideas, among 205 that were proposed and scored, and calculated the concordance with the ranking generated by the 91 original scorers. Second, we used rank correlation coefficients to compare the ranks assigned to all 205 proposed research ideas when samples of different size are used. We also analysed the original pool of 91 scorers to to look for evidence of scoring variations based on scorers' characteristics.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The sample sizes investigated ranged from 15 to 90. The concordance for the top 20 scored research ideas increased with sample sizes up to about 55 experts. At this point, the median level of concordance stabilized at 15/20 top ranked questions (75%), with the interquartile range also generally stable (14-16). There was little further increase in overlap when the sample size increased from 55 to 90. When analysing the ranking of all 205 ideas, the rank correlation coefficient increased as the sample size increased, with a median correlation of 0.95 reached at the sample size of 45 experts (median of the rank correlation coefficient = 0.95; IQR 0.94-0.96).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our analyses suggest that the collective opinion of an expert group on a large number of research ideas, expressed through categorical variables (Yes/No/Not Sure/Don't know), stabilises relatively quickly in terms of identifying the ideas that have most support. In the exercise we found a high degree of reproducibility of the identified research priorities was achieved with as few as 45-55 experts.
authors.affiliation: Department for Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Sachiyo
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Yoshida
authors.affiliation: Centre for Global Health Research, The Usher Institute for Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
authors.forename: Igor
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Rudan
authors.affiliation: Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
authors.forename: Simon
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Cousens
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D000067576:Child Health / Q000592:standards*; D063045:Crowdsourcing / Q000379:methods*; D006292:Health Priorities / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D052756:Nutritional Sciences / Q000458:organization & administration*; D011639:Public Opinion; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012106:Research; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards*