|Protocol description of the Delphi procedure|
|Delphi round||N experts||Response rate||Document||Task / Question||Analysis|
|n° 1||30||83% (25/30)||document 1: Flemish translation of CanMEDS (cfr. Additional file 1)||- relevance? (6 point Likert scale)||- frequency|
|- suggestions?||- listing suggestions|
|n° 2||25||88% (22/25)||document 1 + round 1 comments||- relevance? (6 point Likert scale)||- frequency|
|- (non)-agreement on listed suggestions?||- listing (non-) agreements|
|n° 3||25||96% (24/25)||document 2: revision of document 1 using round 1 & 2 comments||1) Are the competences formulated sufficiently concrete and assessable?||- last revision|
|2) Is there overlap between certain competences and/or roles?|
|3) Are certain aspects of competences or roles missing?|
Description of the three Delphi rounds concerning the number of invited experts, the response rate, the document in that particular round, the requested task of the experts and the analysis performed.
Michels et al.
Michels et al. BMC Medical Education 2012 12:86 doi:10.1186/1472-6920-12-86