Assessment of a Binary Measurement System in Current Use

Binary measurement systems that classify parts as pass or fail are widely used in industry, especially for systematic inspection in high-volume processes. In this context, we are likely to have available a large number of previously measured passed and failed parts. To support production and quality improvement, it is important to assess the misclassification rates, e.g., the probability of failing a conforming part or passing a nonconforming part. We may also want to estimate the unknown conforming rate. Here we focus on the assessment of a binary measurement system when no gold-standard measurement system is available. The standard assessment plan is to repeatedly measure a sample of parts and use a latent class model. We demonstrate the substantial benefit of supplementing the standard plan with the available data from the previously measured parts. We propose new sampling plans and compare them with the standard plan with respect to the precision of the estimators of the misclassification rates. We also give recommendations for planning an assessment study when we can sample from a population of previously measured parts.

[1]  Stefan H. Steiner,et al.  Improved Measurement-System Assessment for Processes with 100% Inspection , 2009 .

[2]  P M Vacek,et al.  The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. , 1985, Biometrics.

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

[4]  S D Walter,et al.  Effects of dependent errors in the assessment of diagnostic test performance. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  Dean V. Neubauer,et al.  Acceptance Sampling in Quality Control , 1983 .

[6]  M. Tan,et al.  Random effects models in latent class analysis for evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests. , 1996, Biometrics.

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

[8]  C. G. Broyden The Convergence of a Class of Double-rank Minimization Algorithms 2. The New Algorithm , 1970 .

[9]  S D Walter,et al.  Estimation of test error rates, disease prevalence and relative risk from misclassified data: a review. , 1988, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

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

[11]  Paul F. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Latent Structure Analysis. , 1969 .

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

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

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

[15]  Neil Henry Latent structure analysis , 1969 .

[16]  C. G. Broyden The Convergence of a Class of Double-rank Minimization Algorithms 1. General Considerations , 1970 .

[17]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[18]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

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