Measuring and comparing effectiveness of data quality techniques

9Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Poor quality data may be detected and corrected by performing various quality assurance activities that rely on techniques with different efficacy and cost. In this paper, we propose a quantitative approach for measuring and comparing the effectiveness of these data quality (DQ) techniques. Our definitions of effectiveness are inspired by measures proposed in Information Retrieval. We show how the effectiveness of a DQ technique can be mathematically estimated in general cases, using formal techniques that are based on probabilistic assumptions. We then show how the resulting effectiveness formulas can be used to evaluate, compare and make choices involving DQ techniques. © 2009 Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

References Powered by Scopus

Data Quality Assessment

1344Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Modeling information manufacturing systems to determine information product quality

434Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Conditional functional dependencies for capturing data inconsistencies

330Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

An inconsistency measure of spatial data sets with respect to topological constraints

13Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Capturing Enterprise Data Integration Challenges Using a Semiotic Data Quality Framework

11Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Evaluating data quality for integration of data sources

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jiang, L., Barone, D., Borgida, A., & Mylopoulos, J. (2009). Measuring and comparing effectiveness of data quality techniques. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 5565 LNCS, pp. 171–185). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02144-2_17

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 10

63%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

25%

Researcher 2

13%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 13

76%

Mathematics 2

12%

Engineering 1

6%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 1

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free