Sometimes a measurement system has a measured value from a finite number of categories. The simplest of them is a go/no go pledge. This salary simply tells you if the play goes by or if it fails. There are only two possible outcomes. Other attribute measurement systems can have several categories, such as very good, good, poor and very bad. In this newsletter, we use the simple go/no go-Gage to understand how an attribute-Gage-R-R study works. This is the first in a series of newsletters on attribute-Gage-R-R studies and focuses on the comparison of evaluators. In this edition: The accuracy of a measurement system is analyzed by segmenting it into two main elements: repeatability (the ability of a particular evaluator to assign the same value or attribute several times under the same conditions) and reproducibility (the ability of several assessors to agree among themselves for a certain set of circumstances). In the case of an attribute measurement system, repeatability or reproducibility problems necessarily pose precision problems. In addition, if global accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility are known, distortions can also be detected in situations where decisions are always wrong. In addition to the sample size problem, logistics can ensure that listeners do not remember the original attribute they attributed to a scenario when they see it for the second time, also a challenge. Of course, this can be avoided a bit by increasing the sample size and, better yet, waiting a while before giving the scenarios to the evaluators a second time (perhaps one to two weeks).
Randomization of transitions from one audit to another can also be helpful. In addition, evaluators tend to work differently when they know they are being examined, so that the fact that they know it is a test also distorts the results. Hiding this in one way or another can help, but it`s almost impossible to achieve, despite the fact that it borders on the inthesis. And in addition to being at best marginally effective, these solutions increase an already demanding study with complexity and time. You can also see columns to better understand the agreement. Tom failed on a total of 27 games. Bob also failed 24 times on the same game, but he handed over 3 games. Tom managed 63 games; Bob accepted it 59 times, but he failed on 4 of them, which Tom missed. First, as a team (four people), we discussed all modes of error and gravity assessment to understand the meaning of each error mode and evaluation system. You`ve selected a go/no go-gage attribute to use. This payment will simply tell if the part is in the specifications. It does not tell you how “close” is the result of the nominalist; only that it is in the specifications.
Once it is established that the bug tracking system is a system for measuring attributes, the next step is to examine the concepts of accuracy and accuracy that relate to the situation.