Repeatability and reproducibility are components of accuracy in an analysis of the attribute measurement system, and it is advisable to first determine if there is a precision problem. This means that before designing an attribute contract analysis and selecting the appropriate scenarios, an analyst should urgently consider monitoring the database to determine if past events have been properly coded. Yes, for example. B Repeatability is the main problem, evaluators are disoriented or undecided by certain criteria. When it comes to reproducibility, evaluators have strong opinions on certain conditions, but these opinions differ. If the problems are highlighted by several assessors, the problems are naturally systemic or procedural. If the problems only concern a few assessors, then the problems might simply require a little personal attention. In both cases, training or work aids could be tailored to either specific individuals or all evaluators, depending on the number of evaluators who were guilty of imprecise attribution of attributes. ISO/TR 14468:2010 evaluates a measurement process in which the characteristics to be measured are measured in the form of attribute data (including nominal and ordinal data). Analytically, this technique is a wonderful idea. But in practice, the technique can be difficult to execute judiciously.
First, there is always the question of sample size. For attribute data, relatively large samples are required to be able to calculate percentages with relatively low confidence intervals. If an expert looks at 50 different error scenarios – twice – and the match rate is 96 percent (48 votes vs. 50), the 95 percent confidence interval ranges from 86.29% to 99.51 percent. It is a fairly large margin of error, especially in terms of the challenge of choosing the scenarios, checking them in depth, making sure the value of the master is assigned, and then convincing the examiner to do the job – twice. If the number of scenarios is increased to 100, the 95 per cent confidence interval for a 96 per cent match rate will be reduced to a range of 90.1 to 98.9 per cent (Figure 2). Attribute analysis can be an excellent tool for detecting the causes of inaccuracies in a bug tracking system, but it must be used with great care, reflection and minimal complexity, should it ever be used. The best way to do this is to first monitor the database and then use the results of that audit to perform a targeted and optimized analysis of repeatability and reproducibility. In this example, a repeatability assessment is used to illustrate the idea, and it also applies to reproducibility.
The fact is that many samples are needed to detect differences in an analysis of the attribute, and if the number of samples is doubled from 50 to 100, the test does not become much more sensitive. Of course, the difference that needs to be identified depends on the situation and the level of risk that the analyst is prepared to bear in the decision, but the reality is that in 50 scenarios, it is difficult for an analyst to think that there is a statistical difference in the reproducibility of two examiners with match rates of 96 percent and 86 percent. With 100 scenarios, the analyst will not be able to see any difference between 96% and 88%. 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. First, it helps to understand that accuracy and precision are terms borrowed from the world of continuous (or variable) gags. For example, it is desirable that the speedometer in a car can carefully read the correct speed over a range of speeds (for example.B.