# IoT Socioeconomicenvironmental Assessment Instrument: Validation Process Applying Delphi Method
## 3 Results
### Delphi Technique Application
#### 3.3.1 Expert Selection
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Professional Title** & **Area of Expertise** & **Years of Experience** \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Consultant} & Experienced professional with over 15 years of expertise in the IoT and Telecommunication sectors, specializing in IoT and intelligent factory solutions. Held different responsibilities within Sigfox, & \\  & including operations, country management and head of sales in South America. Managing Director of Managing (Brazil), services consulting for LPWAN/Cellular IoT, Telecommunications Business & \\  & Development activities in Latin America. & \\  & “World Economic Forum Industrial IoT” expert contributor, & \\  & focusing on IoT 4 th Industrial Revolution, building up support and & \\  & establishing Industrial IoT end-to-end solutions/applications as the digital standard within different industries. & \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Top Manager} & Factory in the wooden artifacts segment & Not \\  & informed \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Manager} & Factory in the wooden artifacts segment & Not \\  & informed \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. 1 Informed by experts.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Statement Items** & **Expert 1** & **Expert 2** & **Expert 3** & **Expert 4** & **Expert 5** & **Expert 6** \\ \hline (1) Top management chooses to implement & & & & & & \\ IoT technology, expecting it to be beneficial & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 3 \\ in the digitalized world. & & & & & & \\ (2) Top management chooses to implement & & & & & & \\ IoT technology, viewing it as an agent & 3 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ for improvement. & & & & & & \\ (3) Top management adopts IoT technology, & & & & & & \\ recognizing it as a transformative agent, & & & & & & \\ which perpetually manifests shock waves & 1 & 3 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 3 \\ throughout the organization. & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: The values represent the evaluation scores provided by the experts (1 = Insufficient, 2 = Good, 3 = Excellent) regarding the three statements.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Validation phase—first round. If the initial I-CVIs are low, the recommendation is to take two rounds of expert review, suggesting the need for statement improvements and better instructions to the experts [29]. Concerning the validation phase, scores of 2 or 3 were considered valid. The calculation of I-CVI counted the number of scores \(\geq\) 2 for each item and divided them by the total number of six experts. The formula employed in Excel was  
\[\text{CONT.SE}(\text{B2:G2,''\geq 2''})/6 \tag{1}\]  
The results were  
Item 1, I-CVI = 0.5;  
Item 2, I-CVI = 1;  
Item 3, I-CVI = 0.666. Items 1 and 3 resulted in I-CVI being lower than 0.78. Concerning the scale-level index S-CVI/Ave, the result was 0.722, which did not reach the level expected. The second round consists of experts suggesting revisions and recommending additional statements. The experts conducted a comprehensive review and expanded the statements to twenty-two items, as shown in Appendix B. * Narrowing down phase  
The first round began with the experts scoring the statements using a 5-point Likert scale, as presented in Table 3. The Likert scale ranged from Completely Disagree (score of 1) to Completely Agree (score of 5) concerning whether statements capture the information necessary to fulfill the objective of the indicator (see Appendix B). Statistical analyses were performed, including the calculation of the standard deviation and the Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI), which supported the decision to remove certain statements. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Items** & **Expert 1** & **Expert 2** & **Expert 3** & **Expert 4** & **Expert 5** & **Expert 6** \\ \hline (1) & 5 & 4 & 3 & 4 & 4 & 5 \\ (2) & 3 & 5 & 3 & 4 & 3 & 4 \\ (3) & 5 & 5 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 5 \\ (4) & 3 & 5 & 2 & 4 & 3 & 3 \\ (5) & 3  
The items presenting a standard deviation exceeding 0.90 were considered insufficient consensus among the experts and were consequently recommended for exclusion.