IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0141697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterising Uncertainty in Expert Assessments: Encoding Heavily Skewed Judgements

Author

Listed:
  • Rebecca A O’Leary
  • Samantha Low-Choy
  • Rebecca Fisher
  • Kerrie Mengersen
  • M Julian Caley

Abstract

When limited or no observed data are available, it is often useful to obtain expert knowledge about parameters of interest, including point estimates and the uncertainty around these values. However, it is vital to elicit this information appropriately in order to obtain valid estimates. This is particularly important when the experts’ uncertainty about these estimates is strongly skewed, for instance when their best estimate is the same as the lowest value they consider possible. Also this is important when interest is in the aggregation of elicited values. In this paper, we compare alternative distributions for describing such estimates. The distributions considered include the lognormal, mirror lognormal, Normal and scaled Beta. The case study presented here involves estimation of the number of species in coral reefs, which requires eliciting counts within broader taxonomic groups, with highly skewed uncertainty estimates. This paper shows substantial gain in using the scaled Beta distribution, compared with Normal or lognormal distributions. We demonstrate that, for this case study on counting species, applying the novel encoding methodology developed in this paper can facilitate the acquisition of more rigorous estimates of (hierarchical) count data and credible bounds. The approach can also be applied to the more general case of enumerating a sampling frame via elicitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Rebecca A O’Leary & Samantha Low-Choy & Rebecca Fisher & Kerrie Mengersen & M Julian Caley, 2015. "Characterising Uncertainty in Expert Assessments: Encoding Heavily Skewed Judgements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0141697
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141697
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141697
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141697&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0141697?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Johnson, Fred A. & Smith, Brian J. & Bonneau, Mathieu & Martin, Julien & Romagosa, Christina & Mazzotti, Frank & Waddle, Hardin & Reed, Robert N. & Eckles, Jennifer Kettevrlin & Vitt, Laurie J., 2017. "Expert Elicitation, Uncertainty, and the Value of Information in Controlling Invasive Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 83-90.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0141697. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.