39 views

Uploaded by rlashmin

save

You are on page 1of 6

Instructions:

1)

**The following spreadsheet is used to calculate an Attribute GR&R Effectiveness, in which up to 100 samples
**

can be evaluated, using 2 or 3 operators.

2)

In the Data Entry worksheet, fill in the appropriate information in the Scoring Report section and enter the type

of Attributes you are evaluating in the Attribute Legend section. THE INFORMATION MUST BE

ENTERED INTO THE ATTRIBUTE LEGEND SECTION OR THE SPREADSHEET WILL NOT

WORK. The attributes can be either alpha or numeric, e.g. Yes, No; pass, fail; go, stop; or 1, 2. You must be

consistent throughout the form and spell properly.

3)

If you or an expert has selected samples to be evaluated and you know what attributes these samples are (Good

vs Bad), enter this information in the STANDARD column. This will enable you to determine how well each

operator can evaluate a set of samples against a known standard. You do not need to enter information in this

column for the spreadsheet to work, although you will not be able to assess the operators against known

standards.

4)

You do not have to specify how many operators or the # of samples that you will be evaluating during the test.

Simply enter the data into the spreadsheet under the specific operator. Remember the attributes must be spelled

properly or the spreadsheet will not analyze the data correctly.

5)

To print a copy of the report click on the Print Report icon.

6)

To delete the data in the spreadsheet, click on the Delete Data icon.

7)

To see a Demo of the Attribute GR&R Effectiveness spreadsheet, click on the Demo icon. Move around the

spread sheet to see the data. When you are finished, click the Delete Data icon to delete all data to begin

entering your own data.

NOTES:

The 95% UCL and 95% LCL represent the 95% upper and lower confidence limits on the

binomial distribution. The Calculated Score is the basic computation reported on the report

page for % Appraiser and % Score vs Attribute. The 95% confidence interval represents the

range within which the true Calculated Score lies given the uncertainty associated with limited

sample sizes. As sample size increases (in this case, Total Inspected) the confidence interval

will get smaller and smaller which indicates more reliable estimates of the true percentages.

In the case of the Demo data, the true Calculated score for Operator 1 could be as low as

76.8% given that only 14 samples inspected, even though there was a 100% Appraiser value

calculated. Also, even though Operator 2 had a lower score, Operators 1 and 3 cannot be

distinguished from Operator 2 because the calculated score of #2 (78.6%) lies within the

confidence limits for Operators 1 and 3.

**With a worksheet limitation of 100 samples, the best the lower 95% limit can be is 96.4%.
**

Thus, we would have to say that the best an inspector could be is 96% efficient; even though

they did not make any mistakes.

large sample sizes will be required. EXAMPLE: a sample size of 30 with one non-match will yield a 17% confidence interval.Try different combinations of number of samples and number of matches to see the effects of sample size. . In order to get reasonable reliability in estimates of efficiency.

Attribute Legend5 (Must Enter Information) DATE: NAME: 1 PRODUCT: 2 BUSINESS: Optional: Enter Operator Name or use Default Operator #1 Operator #2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Standard Try #1 Try #2 Try #1 Try #2 Y/N Y/N Agree Agree Operator #3 Known Population Sample # All Operators agree with standard SCORING REPORT All operators agree witin and between each other Attribute Gage R & R Effectiveness Try #1 Try #2 .

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 .

ATTRIBUTE Note: (1) Operator agrees with him/herself on both trials (2) Operator agrees on both trials with the known standard (3) All operators agreed within and between themselves (4) All operators agreed within and between themselves AND agreed with the known standard (5) Enter Pass/Fail.79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 % APPRAISER SCORE(1) -> #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0% % SCORE VS.00% . Good/Bad.00% SCREEN % EFFECTIVE SCORE vs. Accept/Reject or other labels which indicate status of inspection (4) -> 0. ATTRIBUTE(2) -> Known Known Known SCREEN % EFFECTIVE SCORE(3) -> 0.

0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Screen % Effective Score vs Standard4 100 0 3.0% 70.0% 10.6% 0.0% 1 2 3 1 Notes 1) Operator agrees with him/herself on both trials 2) Operator agrees on both trials with the known standard 3) All operators agreed within and between themselves 4) All operators agreed within & between themselves AND agreed with the known standard 2 3 .0% 30.0% 0.0% 90.0% 10.0% 20.Attribute Gage R&R Study DATE: 30-Dec-1899 NAME: PRODUCT: 0 0 BUSINESS: 0 % Appraiser to Self1 % Appraiser Vs Standard2 Operator Operator Operator Operator Operator Operator #1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Source Total Inspected # Matched 95% UCL Calculated Score 95% LCL False Negative (operator biased toward rejection) Std = Pass False Positive (operator biased toward acceptance) Std = Fail Mixed (Operator accepts and rejects the same part) Total Inspected # in Agreement 95% UCL Calculated Score 95% LCL 0 0 0 Screen % Effective Score3 100 0 3.0% 0.6% 0.0% 60.0% % Apprraiser to Self % Appraise r Vs Standard 95% LCL 100.0% 50.0% 40.0% 100.0% 20.0% 80.0% % Efficiency % Efficiency 95% LCL 50.0% 40.0% 80.0% 70.0% 30.0% 0.0% 60.Statistical Report .0% 0.0% 90.

- Statistics in Anaesthesia - Part 1Uploaded bynot here 2make friends sorry
- Sampling TheoryUploaded byPrima Hp
- [35] - Price-Taker_Bidding_Strategy_under_Price_Uncertainty.pdfUploaded byStephen Testerov
- Immunization Coverage SurveyUploaded byMuna Hassan Mustafa
- Proving Marketing ImpactUploaded byPhương Hoài
- Sample Questions for FinalUploaded byUsman Ahmed
- Sampling 2Uploaded byAkib xabed
- toxsumm3Uploaded byمحمدأميندماج
- Sugu ResumeUploaded byanon_437794455
- Hi Everyone- StatsUploaded byDevon Moody
- Estimation of Stature of Eastern Indians From Measurements of Tibial Length 2161 0940.1000115Uploaded byBAYU
- Job Involvement 9 2 4Uploaded byakshy9961
- NOV-10 BLS Jobs ReportUploaded byCoy Davidson
- Math 221 Week 7 QuizUploaded byAlan Mark
- Confidence Interval - Notes 1Uploaded byGodfred Abledu
- Regulatory Conditions for the Determination of Bioequivalence of Highly.pdfUploaded bysamakeko
- Horgan Er AS2010Uploaded bySebnem Er
- MAT 540 Statistical Concepts for ResearchUploaded bynequwan79
- 30 Fair empl.prac.cas. 906, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,720 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American National Bank, 680 F.2d 965, 4th Cir. (1982)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- CH09AUploaded bynikowawa
- Algoritmo General Para La Estratificacion Univariada- Paul RivestUploaded byLuis Alberto Bautista
- Pereira 2017Uploaded byAgri Azizah
- spreadsheetsUploaded byapi-239529118
- bithanu aUploaded bybirhanu Ayenew Anley
- 668229926Uploaded byVirojana Tantibadaro
- Borderline SignificanceUploaded bybshinkins
- Business Statistics Research Methods - Bba 205 - 2004 Dec - End TermUploaded byggsipu_info1
- Incertidumbre y Error Aleatorio InglesUploaded byjulianchs7
- Department of Labor: ui new hires pilotUploaded byDepartment of Labor
- Statistics for Computer ScienceUploaded byAhmed Kadem Arab