Face-to-Face Meeting (Round 2)The p

Face-to-Face Meeting (Round 2)The panel face-to-face meeting was moderated by F.K. and M.V. (nonvoting members). During this half-day meeting, each panelist received a table comparing their scores with the median scores (generated by other panelists) for each measure. Discussion focused on the areas of disagreement to understand the sources of variation. Panel members were also tasked with identifying additional measures not on the original list, modifying existing measures that were imperfectly worded, and deleting measures that were perceived to be problematic or irrelevant. After an updated list of measures was developed, the panelists rerated the importance, reach, and performance gap of each measure again by using the 9-point scale. We selected measures based on ratings of importance. As done previously, we considered a measure important if the median rating was 7-9 without any disagreement between the raters. We presented median ratings on the remaining two constructs for the final measure set.