Measurement System Analysis for Binary Inspection: Continuous Versus Dichotomous Measurands

We review methods for assessing the reliability of binary measurements, such as accept/reject inspection in industry. Our framework introduces two factors that are highly relevant in deciding which method to use: (1) whether a reference value (gold standard) can be obtained and (2) whether the underlying measurand is continuous or truly dichotomous. Artificially dichotomizing a continuous measurand, as is commonly done, creates complications that are underappreciated in the literature and in practice. In particular, it introduces an intrinsic reason for the assumption of conditional i.i.d. to be violated. For most methods, this is not crucial provided the samples are random (or at least representative). But, also for most methods, it is, in general, not clear how one can obtain a random sample from the relevant population. The taxonomy presents methods that are generally known in industry, such as nonparametric estimation of false-acceptance and false-rejection probabilities, AIAG's analytic method (logistic regression), latent class modeling, and latent trait modeling. The methods discussed are applied to an example presented in the measurement-system-analysis manual from the automotive industry.

[1]  Benjamin M. Adams,et al.  Modern Statistical Quality Control and Improvement , 1993 .

[2]  J Mastde,et al.  Measurement system analysis for categorical data: Agreement and kappa type indices , 2007 .

[3]  M. Pepe The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction , 2003 .

[4]  Stefan H. Steiner,et al.  Assessment of a Binary Measurement System in Current Use , 2010 .

[5]  Wessel N. van Wieringen,et al.  On identifiability of certain latent class models , 2005 .

[6]  Jeroen de Mast,et al.  Measurement System Analysis for Binary Data , 2008, Technometrics.

[7]  Edwin R. van den Heuvel,et al.  A Comparison of Methods for the Evaluation of Binary Measurement Systems , 2005 .

[8]  Stefan H. Steiner,et al.  Assessing a Binary Measurement System , 2008 .

[9]  James D. Stamey,et al.  A Bayesian Model to Assess a Binary Measurement System When No Gold Standard System Is Available , 2011 .

[10]  M. R. Novick,et al.  The Role of Exchangeability in Inference , 1981 .

[11]  Jeroen de Mast,et al.  Measurement system analysis for categorical measurements: Agreement and kappa-type indices , 2007 .

[12]  Jeroen de Mast,et al.  Modeling and Evaluating Repeatability and Reproducibility of Ordinal Classifications , 2010, Technometrics.

[13]  E. Iso,et al.  Measurement Uncertainty and Probability: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement , 1995 .

[14]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edn. , 1990 .

[15]  S. Walter,et al.  Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. , 1980, Biometrics.

[16]  J. H. Schuenemeyer,et al.  Generalized Linear Models (2nd ed.) , 1992 .

[17]  William D Mawby,et al.  Make Your Destructive, Dynamic, and Attribute Measurement System Work For You , 2006 .

[18]  J. D. Mast Agreement and Kappa-Type Indices , 2007 .

[19]  P. Fayers Item Response Theory for Psychologists , 2004, Quality of Life Research.

[20]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1972, Predictive Analytics.

[21]  S. Standard GUIDE TO THE EXPRESSION OF UNCERTAINTY IN MEASUREMENT , 2006 .

[22]  Russell A. Boyles,et al.  Gauge Capability for Pass—Fail Inspection , 2001, Technometrics.