The Snake Keeper Blog

At this stage, the evaluation of the attribute agreement should be applied and the detailed results of the review should provide a good set of information in order to understand how best to organize the evaluation. Because we perform an analysis of an attribute agreement for attribute data, only repeatability is measured. Which can not give an exact value. But in continuous R&R, we can measure accurate values with continuous values. So that we can accept with narrow value. The accuracy of a measurement system is analyzed by segmenting it into two essential components: 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 evaluators to agree among themselves for a number of circumstances). In the case of an attribute measurement system, repeatability or reproducibility problems inevitably cause accuracy problems. In addition, if one knows the overall accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility, distortions can be detected even in situations where decisions are systematically wrong. Attribute contract analysis usually involves binary decision-making around one or more attributes of the element to be verified, i.e. accept or deny, good or evil, existence or failure, etc. In this context, we therefore refer to a discrete type of data.

The key that is referred to here is the human factor (known as the expert) that usually presents these assessments. With this condition, it is important that evaluators comply with themselves (repeatability), peers (reproducibility) and known standards (team accuracy). Poor repeatability implies that the evaluator himself is not clear about the analysis of the measurement system and therefore requires in-depth training, understanding and guidance, otherwise the whole purpose of the evaluation will be meaningless. For example, if repeatability is the main problem, evaluators are confused or undecided on certain criteria. If reproducibility is the problem, then evaluators have strong opinions on certain conditions, but those opinions differ. If the problems are shown by several evaluators, the problems are systemic or procedural. If the problems concern only a few evaluators, the problems may simply require a little personal attention. In both cases, training or work aids could be adapted either to specific individuals or to all evaluators, depending on the number of evaluators guilty of imprecise attribution of attributes. However, a bug tracking system is not a continuous nutrient. The assigned values are correct or not. there is no (or there is no) grey area. If codes, locations, and severity levels are set efficiently, there is only one correct attribute for each of these categories for a specific error.

Congratulations to the 4 interviewees. They pushed the nail – one cannot expect absolute repeatability in continuous data, because if it is not a prerequisite in the R&R pledge. However, attribute data has responses that can be counted and categorized, leading to absolute repeatability – there are no possible acceptable domains compared to continuous data. An attribute agreement analysis allows the impact of repeatability and reproducibility on accuracy to be assessed simultaneously. It allows the analyst to study the responses of multiple auditors, while examining multiple scenarios. It compiles statistics that assess the ability of evaluators to agree with themselves (repeatability), with each other (reproducibility) and with a well-known control or accuracy value (overall precision) for each characteristic – again and again. First, the analyst should establish that there is indeed attribute data. It can be assumed that assigning a code – that is, classifying a code into a category – is a decision that characterizes the error by an attribute. . .

.