Meta-Analysis Rating Fields

Rating InputsRating Outputs
Included studies applied the same methodology and accounted for the same confounding factors, including: RTM, Traffic volume changes, Tiem trends, and Crash migration/spillover effects, if applicable. Rating for study methodoligies accounted for. 10
Crash type and severity definitions consistent between outcome measures of studies yes Rating for crash type and severity definition consistency. 20
Individual estimates exhibit consistency in the direction of effect. yes Rating for estimate consistency. 10
Publication bias was tested for and addressed if present. yes Rating for publication bias. 5
A majority of studies used are deemed acceptable by the NCHRP 17-72 rating scheme. no/unknown Rating for NCHRP 17-72 acceptable ratin scheme. 0
The standard error of at least one of the CMFs is less than or equal to 0.10. yes Rating for standard error value. 10
A test of homogeneity indicates that the CMF estimates can be combined. yes Rating for test of homogeneity. 20
Appropriate method used to estimate the combined CMF. some Rating for appropriate method for estimate. 10
Overall CMF is statistically significant at 0.05, 0.10, or 0.15 levels. 0.05 Rating for CMF significance level. 20

Read more about how the Star Quality Rating scores are determined.