The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consensus Values and Weighting Factors
Open accessAbstract
A method is presented for the statistical analysis of sets of data which are assembled from multiple experiments. The analysis recognizes the existence of both within group and between group variabilities, and calculates appropriate weighting factors based on the observed variability for each group. The weighting factors are used to calculate a "best" consensus value from the overall experiment. The technique for obtaining the consensus value is applicable to either the determination of the weighted average value, or to the parameters associated with a weighted least squares regression problem. The calculations are made by using an iterative technique with a truncated Taylor series expansion. The calculations are straightforward, and are easily programmed on a desktop computer. An examination of the observed variabilities, both within groups and between groups, leads to considerable insight into the overall experiment and greatly aids in the design of future experiments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Cited by
How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial
Balduzzi, S., Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G. (2019) · Evidence Based Mental Health · doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 · Cited by 5,827
Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: An update
DerSimonian, R., & Kacker, R. (2007) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004 · Cited by 2,374
The WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group, Sterne, J. A. C., Murthy, S., Diaz, J. V., Slutsky, A. S., Villar, J., Angus, D. C., Annane, D., Azevedo, L. C. P., Berwanger, O., et al. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17023 · Cited by 2,257
Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis
Veroniki, A. A., Jackson, D., Viechtbauer, W., Bender, R., Bowden, J., Knapp, G., Kuss, O., Higgins, J. P., Langan, D., & Salanti, G. (2016) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1164 · Cited by 1,685
A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random‐effects meta‐analyses
Langan, D., Higgins, J. P. T., Jackson, D., Bowden, J., Veroniki, A. A., Kontopantelis, E., Viechtbauer, W., & Simmonds, M. (2019) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1316 · Cited by 1,074
Metadata
- Authors
- Paule, R. C., & Mandel, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards
- Published
- 1982-09
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 377
- ISSN
- 0160-1741 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128640268
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consensus Values and Weighting Factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.6028/jres.087.022
- The paper
- Paule, R. C., & Mandel, J. (1982). Consensus Values and Weighting Factors. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.087.022
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
