# IoT Socioeconomicenvironmental Assessment Instrument: Validation Process Applying Delphi Method
## 2 Materials and Methods  
This study employs the Delphi method to validate an original assessment tool proposed by [PERSON] et al. [25; 26]. There are three common consensus methods, namely the nominal group process, consensus development panels and the Delphi technique. The Delphi method offers advantages over other techniques [31]. For instance, it minimizes potential biases and external influences associated with face-to-face interactions by ensuring respondent anonymity. The iterative ranking of each item through multiple evaluation rounds by the panel of experts enhances the reliability of the final conclusions, producing more robust outcomes compared to a single meeting. Notably, it does not necessitate specified meeting times [32] offering flexibility, which could be impractical for international experts [33]. Furthermore, Delphi is a method focused on exploring potential and desirable future developments [34] \"attempt to address 'what could/should be\" [35] (p. 213). In this context, the Delphi method was selected as the primary approach for validating the original assessment tool [25]. The Delphi method developed in this study was based on the framework outlined by [PERSON] et al. [34], as shown in Appendix A:  
* Selecting experts:
* The selection was carried out through convenience sampling, which is a type of non-probabilistic sampling characterized by privileged access to respondents [36]. In this sense, the panel size was not determined by a statistical sample aimed at representing a specific population [33]. * The criteria included the identification of categories of experts, the evaluation of their qualifications, and their knowledge related to the research topic [33]. Although a panel composed of ten members has demonstratedbetter performance [31], a panel size ranging from 6 to 11 members was considered satisfactory [32]. * Validation phase: \(\bigcirc\)  After the experts confirmed their participation in the study, the researcher sent them an e-mail with the original instrument and an Excel spreadsheet to support the validation of the instrument's statements and indicators. The experts were asked to evaluate the criteria as insufficient, good or excellent regarding their unambiguous significance or precise interpretation. \(\bigcirc\)  The researcher received reviewed statements and the indicators from the experts, in addition to organizing their comments. Statistical analyses were applied, including content validity of individual items (I-CVI) and the average proportion of items (S-CVI/Ave), to quantify the relevancy of each statement by respondents' agreement and to identify a strong conceptualization of constructs and good statements for content validity. The list was sent back to the experts for validation of the new statements and indicators previously incorporated by them. Additionally, participants should introduce new statements and indicators perceived as not covered. * Narrowing down phase:  This phase involved the refinement of the list of statements from the instrument. The researcher sent the list back to the experts with instructions to classify the statements using a Likert scale with five points: totally disagree, disagree, neutral, agree or totally agree [37]. The Likert scale measured the experts' level of agreement or disagreement with a specific statement, sorting them into a specific order based on preference, importance, quality, or another criterion, indicating their relative position on the list. Any requests for the removal of a statement should be justified. Statistical analyses were applied, including the calculation of the standard deviation and the Content Validity Index (CVI), which supported the decision to remove certain statements. * Ranking phase: \(\bigcirc\)  The researcher compiled the statements evaluated in the 'Narrowing down' phase and sent the list back to the experts with instructions to provide a binary response (yes or no) on whether to remove statements with duplicity of meanings and regarding the appropriateness of statements with the indicators.