Author
Abstract
Expert opinion and judgment enter into the practice of statistical inference and decision-making in numerous ways. Indeed, there is essentially no aspect of scientific investigation in which judgment is not required. Judgment is necessarily subjective, but should be made as carefully, as objectively, and as scientifically as possible.Elicitation of expert knowledge concerning an uncertain quantity expresses that knowledge in the form of a (subjective) probability distribution for the quantity. Such distributions play an important role in statistical inference (for example as prior distributions in a Bayesian analysis) and in evidence-based decision-making (for example as expressions of uncertainty regarding inputs to a decision model). This article sets out a number of practices through which elicitation can be made as rigorous and scientific as possible.One such practice is to follow a recognized protocol that is designed to address and minimize the cognitive biases that experts are prone to when making probabilistic judgments. We review the leading protocols in the field, and contrast their different approaches to dealing with these biases through the medium of a detailed case study employing the SHELF protocol.The article ends with discussion of how to elicit a joint probability distribution for multiple uncertain quantities, which is a challenge for all the leading protocols. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
Suggested Citation
Anthony O’Hagan, 2019.
"Expert Knowledge Elicitation: Subjective but Scientific,"
The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 69-81, March.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:amstat:v:73:y:2019:i:s1:p:69-81
DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2018.1518265
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:taf:amstat:v:73:y:2019:i:s1:p:69-81. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.