The phrase "a common standard of" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing a shared benchmark or criterion that is accepted by a group or community.
Example: "In order to ensure quality across all departments, we need to establish a common standard of performance."
Alternatives: "a shared benchmark of" or "a universal criterion of".
Although not legally binding, the declaration was intended to serve as "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations".
It was meant to proclaim "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations" rather than enforceable legal obligations.
She possessed operatic range, which she deployed not to achieve a common standard of virtuosic beauty but to explore the limits of what a human voice could do — or imagine.
Kelsey also revealed that the UK and US governments were currently working on a common standard of certification for health companies to make it easier for them to access both markets.
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, representatives from many cultures endorsed the rights therein set forth "as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations".
The UDHR was devised as an exhortatory document, a statement of aspirations; its preamble says that it is a proclamation of "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations", and enjoins UN members states and their citizens to "strive … to promote respect" for them.
It is encouraging to see more efforts addressing the lack of a common standard for impact data like the work of the newly formed Inspiring Impact Group lead by an influential cohort of sector leaders and experts.
So far the US appears not to be cooperating with the creation of a common standard for information sharing between countries, as drawn up by the OECD.
A two-group ranked analysis of variance with a 0.05 type I error was employed with at least 85% power to detect the difference between an adalimumab mean of 0.2 and a historical control mean of 1.2, a difference in means of 1.0, with the assumption of a common standard deviation of 2.8.
In a two one-sided test analysis for additive equivalence of paired means with bounds -5 and +5 for the mean difference and a significance level of 0.05, assuming a mean difference of 0, a common standard deviation of 16 and correlation 0.9, a sample size of 19 pairs, was required to obtain a power of at least 0.8.
Based on a two-group one-sided t test with significance level of 0.025, a sample size of 29 patients per group was calculated to have 80%% power to reject the null hypothesis, assuming an expected difference in means of 0, a common standard deviation of 0.4, and a non-inferiority lower limit of 0.3 mm.
