Meta-Regression 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 |
| Treatment was applied similarly between locations or accounted for in the model. | yes | Rating for estimate consistency. | 10 |
| Publication bias was tested for and addressed if present. | yes | Rating for publication bias tested. | 5 |
| A majority of studies used are deemed acceptable by the NCHRP 17-72 rating scheme. | yes | Rating for NCHRP 17-72 acceptable ratin scheme. | 25 |
| The standard error of at least one of the CMFs is less than or equal to 0.10. | yes | Rating for standard error of CMFs. | 10 |
| A test of homogeneity indicates that the CMF estimates can be combined. | yes | Rating for test of homogeneity. | 10 |
| Appropriate model form including error terms applied. | yes | Rating for appropriate model form. | 10 |
| Appropriate functional form applied. | yes | Rating for appropriate funcional form. | 10 |
| Consideration of omitted variable bias, considered through design or included in model. | yes | Rating for consideration of omitted variable bias. | 10 |
| Consideration of correlation between independent variables. | yes | Rating for consideration of correlation. | 10 |
| Considered the possible impacts of country of study origin and year. | yes | Rating for possible impacts of country of study. | 10 |
| RATING TOTAL | 140 | ||
Read more about how the Star Quality Rating scores are determined.
