Although the number of honors programs and colleges has grown dramatically over the last twenty years to over a thousand programs nationally, little has been done to develop consistency of standards in honors. In the interest of seeking consistency, the author designed a research study to provide initial insights into assessable measures that a panel of honors administrators agree are meaningful for use in honors program reviews. The study analyzed the content validity of a set of empirically and conceptually derived survey items to facilitate the development of an instrument to assess and review honors programs. The primary research question guiding the study was framed to collect data on the professional judgments of a group of experts regarding the relevance and meaningfulness of the proposed survey items for the purpose of conducting honors program reviews. To address the research question, it was necessary to draw upon the theoretical and practical experience of a panel of experts. Given the impassioned discussion of honors certification and assessment within the national honors education community during the time of this study, the selected method also needed to offer anonymity to the participants. The Delphi technique provided a means of establishing a panel of experts who remained anonymous throughout the study, even to one another, thus increasing the likelihood of dissenting opinions being expressed. According to Lang, "the Delphi was designed to optimize the use of group opinion whilst minimizing the adverse qualities of interacting groups". The main purpose of the study was the production of an instrument generated through consensus. The successive iterations and controlled feedback that are characteristic of the Delphi method ensured that consensus or stability in panel members' responses was reached.