Attribute Agreement Analysis Results

03 Dez Attribute Agreement Analysis Results

Unlike a continuous measurement value, which cannot be accurate (on average), any lack of precision in an attribute measurement system inevitably leads to accuracy problems. If the error coder is not clear or undecided on how to encode a defect, different codes are assigned to several defects of the same type, making the database imprecise. In fact, the vagueness of an attribute measurement system is an important factor in inaccuracies. Like any measurement system, the accuracy and accuracy of the database must be understood before the information is used (or at least during use) to make decisions. At first glance, it appears that the apparent starting point begins with an analysis of the attribute (or attribute-Gage-R-R). That may not be a very good idea. 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. As performing an attribute analysis can be tedious, costly and generally uncomfortable for all stakeholders (the analysis is simple versus execution), it is best to take a moment to really understand what should be done and why.

First, the analyst should determine that there is indeed attribute data. One can assume that the assignment of a code – that is, the division of a code into a category – is a decision that characterizes the error with an attribute. Either a category is correctly assigned to an error, or it is not. Similarly, the appropriate source location is either attributed to the defect or not. These are “yes” or “no” and “correct allocation” or “wrong allocation” answers. This part is pretty simple. 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 right speed over a range of speeds (z.B. 25 mph, 40 mph, 55 mph and 70 mph), regardless of the drive.

The absence of distortion over a range of values over time can generally be described as accuracy (Bias can be considered wrong on average). The ability of different people to interpret and reconcile the same value of salary multiple times is called accuracy (and accuracy problems may be due to a payment problem, not necessarily to the people who use it). Second, the evaluation of the attribute agreement should be applied and the detailed results of the audit should provide a number of information that will help to understand how evaluation can be the best way to be organized. 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).