Meta-Analysis Rating Fields | |||
| Rating Inputs | Rating 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. | some | 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. | 0.1 | Rating for CMF significance level. | 10 |
| RATING TOTAL | 95 | ||
Read more about how the Star Quality Rating scores are determined.
