An Empirical Study on Data Validation Methods of Delphi and General Consensus

Data collection and review are the building blocks of academic research regardless of the discipline. The gathered and reviewed data, however, need to be validated in order to obtain accurate information. The Delphi consensus is known as a method for validating the data. However, several studies have shown that this method is time-consuming and requires a number of rounds to complete. Until now, there has been no clear evidence that validating data by a Delphi consensus is more significant than by a general consensus. In this regard, if data validation between both methods are not significantly different, then just using a general consensus method is sufficient, easier, and less time-consuming. Hence, this study aims to find out whether or not data validation by a Delphi consensus method is more significant than by a general consensus method. This study firstly collected and reviewed the data of sustainable building criteria, secondly validated these data by applying each consensus method, and finally made a comparison between both consensus methods. The results showed that seventeen of the valid criteria obtained from the general consensus and reduced by the Delphi consensus were found to be inconsistent for sustainable building assessments in Cambodia. Therefore, this study concludes that using the Delphi consensus method is more significant in validating the gathered and reviewed data. This experiment contributes to the selection and application of consensus methods in validating data, information, or criteria, especially in engineering fields.