Gage R&R For Attributes: Instructions

Gage R&R for Attributes
Instructions
1) The following spreadsheet is used to calculate Gage Repeatability & Reproducibility for attribute 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. YOU MUST ENTER THE INFORMATION IN THE ATTRIBUTE LEGEND SECTION OR
THE SPREADSHEET WILL NOT WORK. The attributes can be either alpha or numeric, i.e.., 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, enter this information in
the Attribute sample 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 on the Data Entry page.
6) To delete the data in the spreadsheet, click on the Delete Data icon on the Data Entry page.
7) To delete all and begin a new test, click on the Delete All icon on the Data Entry page.
8) To see a demo of this spreadsheet, click on the Demo icon on the Data Entry page. Move around the spreadsheet to see the data.
When you are finished, click the Delete All icon on the Data Entry page to delete all data to being entering your own data.
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 were 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, at best a lower 95% limit of 96.4% can be calculated. Thus, we would have to say that
an inspector could be as bad as 96% efficient, even though he/she missed no calls.
Trial 30
Match 29 Try out different combinations of number of samples and number of matches to see the effects of
sample size. In this case, a sample size of 30 with one non-match will yield a 17% confidence
UCI 99.9%
interval. In order to get reasonabile reliability in estimates of efficiency, large sample sizes will be
Score 96.7% required.
LCI 82.8%
Revision History
Revision Date Description
A 5/20/2013 New Release
B 6/16/2017 Add 3rd trials for each operators.
Added Kappa Analysis, Relayout Report, add conclusion, remark and signature fields.
Added more data in Demo Data (50 sample * 3 operators * 3 trials).
Changed macro to copy addition Demo Data.
C 9/22/2017 Auto highlight decision that different from attribute, in Report Sheet.
Added Acceptance Criteria, and link the score and matrics to the criteria to set color.
Added Report reference number field for that link to each reports.
Added Verification Sheets, for medical plant used, to document is validation report.
QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage and R for Attributes

Page 1 of 31
Verify revision before use. Instructions
Data Entry
DATE: Report Ref# : 2017?????
Attribute Legend5 (used in computations) NAME:
1 PRODUCT: All operators
2 BUSINESS agree within and All Operators
between each agree with
Other standard
Known Population Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3 Y/N Y/N
Sample # Attribute Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Agree Agree
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
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
QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Page 2 of 31
Verify revision before use. Data Engry
74
75
76
77
78
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) ->
% SCORE VS. ATTRIBUTE(2) -> Known Known Known
SCREEN % EFFECTIVE SCORE(3) ->

SCREEN % EFFECTIVE SCORE vs. ATTRIBUTE (4) ->
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, Good/Bad, Accept/Reject or other labels which indicate status of inspection

Page 3 of 31
Verify revision before use. Data Engry
Scoring Report

2 BUSINESS: agree within and All Operators
Other standard
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 - - - - - - - - - -
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 - - - - - - - - - -
79 - - - - - - - - - -
80 - - - - - - - - - -

Page 4 of 31
Verify revision before use. Scoring Report
Scoring Report

2 BUSINESS: agree within and All Operators
Other standard
81 - - - - - - - - - -
82 - - - - - - - - - -
83 - - - - - - - - - -
84 - - - - - - - - - -
85 - - - - - - - - - -
86 - - - - - - - - - -
87 - - - - - - - - - -
88 - - - - - - - - - -
89 - - - - - - - - - -
90 - - - - - - - - - -
91 - - - - - - - - - -
92 - - - - - - - - - -
93 - - - - - - - - - -
94 - - - - - - - - - -
95 - - - - - - - - - -
96 - - - - - - - - - -
97 - - - - - - - - - -
98 - - - - - - - - - -
99 - - - - - - - - - -
100 - - - - - - - - - -
% APPRAISER SCORE(1) ->

% SCORE VS. ATTRIBUTE(2) -> Known Known Known
SCREEN % EFFECTIVE SCORE(3) ->

SCREEN % EFFECTIVE SCORE vs. ATTRIBUTE (4) ->
Statistical Report
Source All Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
Screen %
Screen % %Score vs %Score vs %Score vs
Effective Score % Appraiser1 % Appraiser1 % Appraiser1
Effective Score3 Attribute2 Attribute2 Attribute2
vs Attribute4
Metric
Total Inspected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# Matched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95% UCL
Score
95% LCL
Result
Kappa Analysis
Kappa Value
P
Result
Assessment Disagreement Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %

False Negative (rejected good product)
False Positive (accepted bad product)
Mixed (decisions are not repeated)
Result
Chart Data
%% Appraiser Score
Appraiser All Operator #1 Operator #2 95% Operator
LCL %
#3 Appraiser Score vs Attribute 95% LCL
% Efficiency
95% UCL
1.1 1.1
Score 1
% Efficiency
1
95% LCL
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
% Appraiser All Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
0.7
95% UCL 0.7
Score0.6 0.6
95% LCL
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0 0
0.3 0.3
Total Qty 0 0
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
All Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3 All Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
Acceptance Criteria: Foot Notes

Reject Marginal Accept (1) Operator agrees with him/herself on both trials.
False Negative > 10.0% 5% - 10% < 5.0% (2) Operator agrees on both trials with the known standard
False Positive > 5.0% 2% - 5% < 2.0% (3) All operators agreed within and between themselves
Effectiveness < 80.0% 80% - 90% > 90.0% (4) All operators agreed within & between themselves
Kappa Value < 0.40 0.4 - 0.75 > 0.75 AND agreed with the known standard
*Marginal = Marginally acceptable for the appraiser – may need improvement
Conclusion: Accept
Remark:
Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:
Name Date Name Date Name Date

Page 5 of 31
Verify revision before use. Scoring Report
Statistical Report Report Ref# : 2017?????
DATE: PRODUCT:
NAME: BUSINESS:

Screen %
Screen %
Effective % %Score vs % %Score vs % %Score vs
Effective
Score vs Appraiser1 Attribute2 Appraiser1 Attribute2 Appraiser1 Attribute2
Score3
Metric Attribute4
Total Inspected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# Matched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95% UCL
Score
95% LCL
Result
Kappa Analysis
Kappa
SE
Z
P
Result

False Negative (rejected good product)
False Positive (accepted bad product)
Mixed (decisions are not repeated)
Result
Chart Data
95% 95%
%% Appraiser
Appraiser Score
All %
Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3 Appraiser Score vs Attribute
LCL LCL
% Efficiency
% Efficiency
95% 1.1
UCL 1.1
Score 1 1
95% LCL 0.9
0.9
0.8 0.8
95% 0.7
UCL 0.7
Score
0.6 0.6
95% 0.5
LCL 0.5
0.4 0.4
0 0 0.3
0.3
Total Qty 0 0
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0

Kappa Value < 0.40 0.4 - 0.75 > 0.75 AND agreed with the known standard
Conclusion: Accept
Remark:
Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:

Page 6 of 31
Verify revision before use. Statistical Report
Statistical Report Report Ref# : 2017?????
DATE: PRODUCT:
NAME: BUSINESS:
Name Date Name Date Name Date

Page 7 of 31
Verify revision before use. Statistical Report
Calculations
Known Population Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
Sample # Attribute Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Try #1 Try #2 Try #3
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Page 8 of 31
Verify revision before use. Calculations
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
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

Page 9 of 31
Appraiser Score and Standard Calculation

Reprod Accuracy Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
Sample (Btwn) (All) within known within known within known
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Page 10 of 31
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
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

Page 11 of 31
Misclassification
Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
Assessment Agreement Assessment Agreement Assessment Agreement
Sample # False Neg False Pos Mixed False Neg False Pos Mixed False Neg False Pos Mixed
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Page 12 of 31
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
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

Page 13 of 31
Kappa: Accuracy
Po = ΣPi, Pi =
Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
Sample # All Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Try #1 Try #2 Try #3
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Page 14 of 31
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
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Po Overall
Pe
Kappa
J
Pe = ΣPj j Overall Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Try #1 Try #2 Try #3
1
2
Pj
Pe = ΣPj
1
1-Pj
2
Sum
1
1-2Pj
2
Sum
1
Pj(1-Pj) P (1-P )
j
2
Sum
j
1
(1-2Pj)
2
Sum
m
n
Kappa, K
VAR
Z
p(vs > 0)
Overall Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
m 0 0 0 0
n 0
Kappa, K
VAR
Z
p(vs > 0)

Page 15 of 31
Kappa: Individual Repeatability

Overall Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
Sample # Between Pi Pi Pi
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Page 16 of 31
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
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Po
Pe
Kappa
J
Pe = ΣPj j Reprod Repeat Repeat Repeat
1
2
Pj
Pe = ΣPj
1
1-Pj
2
Sum
1
1-2Pj
2
Sum
1
Pj(1-Pj) P (1-P )
j
2
Sum
j
1
(1-2Pj)
2
Sum
m
n 0 0 0 0
Kappa, K
VAR(K)
Z
p(vs > 0)

Page 17 of 31
Kappa: Reproducibility - Between operator

Po = ΣPi, Pi =
Operator #1 vs. Operator #2 Operator #1 vs. Operator #3 Operator #2 vs. Operator #3
Sample # Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Try #1 Try #2 Try #3 Try #1 Try #2 Try #3
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Page 18 of 31
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
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Po
Pe
Kappa
Reprod Btwn All Reproducibility

Pe = ΣPj j O1vs.O2 O1vs.O3 O2vs.O3
1
2
Pj
Pe = ΣPj
1
1-Pj
2
Sum
1
1-2Pj
2
Sum
1
Pj(1-Pj) P (1-P )
j
2
Sum
j
1
(1-2Pj)
2
Sum
m
n
Kappa, K
VAR(K)
Z
p(vs > 0)

Page 19 of 31
Data Entry
DATE: 9/22/2017
Attribute Legend5 (used in computations) NAME: HK Tan
1 Pass PRODUCT: Attribute GR&R with Kappa
2 Fail BUSINESS: Sanmina
Known Populatio Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3

Sample #Attribute O1T1 O1T2 O1T3 O2T1 O2T2 O2T3 O3T1 O3T2 O3T3
1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
3 Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail
6 Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Fail
7 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass
12 Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
14 Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail
21 Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail
22 Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail
26 Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass
30 Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail
34 Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass
36 Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass
43 Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail

Page 20 of 31
Verify revision before use Demo Data
51

Page 21 of 31
Worse case combination
Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3
Attribute O1T1 O1T2 O1T3 O2T1 O2T2 O2T3 O3T1 O3T2 O3T3
Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Fail
Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass
Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail
Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail
Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail
Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail
Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass
Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass
Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail
Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass
Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass
Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail
Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail
Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass
Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail

Page 22 of 31
Good Case combination
Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3
Attribute O1T1 O1T2 O1T3 O2T1 O2T2 O2T3 O3T1 O3T2 O3T3
Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Fail
Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass
Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail
Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail
Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail
Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass
Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail
Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass
Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass
Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail

Page 23 of 31
Verification of Good Data
This page is used to store the verification result, using Good data, to compare the output from this template and MINITAB.
Data used:
6 Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Fail
14 Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail
21 Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail % Appraiser Score
22 Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail 110.0%
% Efficiency
23 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass 100.0%
25 Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail 80.0%
26 Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass
70.0%
60.0%
30 Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail 40.0%
10.0%
0.0%
35 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass All Operator #1 Operator #2

Page 24 of 31
Verify revision before use Verification-Good Data
Result from this Template
Screen % Effective Screen % Effective

Metric % Appraiser1 %Score vs Attribute2 % Appraiser1 %Score vs Attribute2 % Appraiser1 %Score vs Attribute2
Score3 Score vs Attribute4
Total Inspected 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
# Matched 39 39 42 42 45 45 40 40
95% UCL 88.5% 88.5% 92.8% 92.8% 96.7% 96.7% 90.0% 90.0%
Score 78.0% 78.0% 84.0% 84.0% 90.0% 90.0% 80.0% 80.0%
95% LCL 64.0% 64.0% 70.9% 70.9% 78.2% 78.2% 66.3% 66.3%
Result Reject Reject Marginal Marginal Accept Accept Marginal Marginal
Kappa Analysis
Kappa 0.7936 0.8592 0.7600 0.8802 0.8451 0.9226 0.7029 0.7747
SE 0.02357 0.0471 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816
Z 33.6698 18.2260 9.3081 10.7806 10.3500 11.2996 8.6089 9.4881
P 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Result Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Marginal Accept

False Negative (rejected good product) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
False Positive (accepted bad product) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Mixed (decisions are not repeated) 8 16.00% 5 10.00% 10 20.00%
Result Accept Accept Accept
Chart Data
%% Appraiser
Appraiser Score All Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator%
95% LCL #3Appraiser Score vs Attribute 95% LCL
110.0%
95% UCL 88.5% 92.8% 96.7% 110.0%
90.0%
% Efficiency
% Efficiency
Score 100.0% 78.0% 84.0% 90.0% 80.0%

100.0%
95% LCL90.0% 64.0% 70.9% 78.2% 66.3%

90.0%
80.0% 80.0%
70.0% 70.0%
95% UCL 88.5% 92.8% 96.7% 90.0%
60.0% 60.0%
Score 78.0% 84.0% 90.0% 80.0%
50.0%
95% LCL50.0% 64.0% 70.9% 78.2% 66.3%
40.0% 40.0%
30.0% 0 0 30.0%
Total Qty 20.0% 0 0 20.0%
10.0% 10.0%
0.0% 0.0%

AND agreed with the known standard
Kappa Value < 0.40 0.4 - 0.75 > 0.75

Page 25 of 31
This results in MINITAB OUTPUT are mark as green color when it has same
result as this template.
MINITAB OUTPUT
————— 9/22/2017 12:16:15 PM ————————————————————
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.
Verification-GoodData.MPJ
Attribute Agreement Analysis for O1T1, O1T2, O1T3, O2T1, O2T2, O2T3, O3T1, O3T2, O3T3
Within Appraisers
Assessment Agreement
Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI

1 50 42 84.00 (70.89, 92.83)
2 50 45 90.00 (78.19, 96.67)
3 50 40 80.00 (66.28, 89.97)
# Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.
Fleiss’ Kappa Statistics
Appraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

1 Fail 0.760000 0.0816497 9.3081 0.0000
Pass 0.760000 0.0816497 9.3081 0.0000
2 Fail 0.845073 0.0816497 10.3500 0.0000
Pass 0.845073 0.0816497 10.3500 0.0000
3 Fail 0.702911 0.0816497 8.6089 0.0000
Pass 0.702911 0.0816497 8.6089 0.0000
Each Appraiser vs Standard

1 50 42 84.00 (70.89, 92.83)
2 50 45 90.00 (78.19, 96.67)
3 50 40 80.00 (66.28, 89.97)
# Matched: Appraiser’s assessment across trials agrees with the known standard.
Assessment Disagreement
# Pass / # Fail /
Appraiser Fail Percent Pass Percent # Mixed Percent
1 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 16.00
2 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 10.00
3 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 20.00
# Pass / Fail: Assessments across trials = Pass / standard = Fail.

# Fail / Pass: Assessments across trials = Fail / standard = Pass.
# Mixed: Assessments across trials are not identical.

1 Fail 0.880236 0.0816497 10.7806 0.0000
Pass 0.880236 0.0816497 10.7806 0.0000
2 Fail 0.922612 0.0816497 11.2996 0.0000
Pass 0.922612 0.0816497 11.2996 0.0000
3 Fail 0.774703 0.0816497 9.4881 0.0000
Pass 0.774703 0.0816497 9.4881 0.0000
Between Appraisers
# Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI

50 39 78.00 (64.04, 88.47)
# Matched: All appraisers’ assessments agree with each other.

Page 26 of 31
Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

Fail 0.793606 0.0235702 33.6698 0.0000
Pass 0.793606 0.0235702 33.6698 0.0000
All Appraisers vs Standard

50 39 78.00 (64.04, 88.47)
# Matched: All appraisers’ assessments agree with the known standard.

Fail 0.859184 0.0471405 18.2260 0.0000
Pass 0.859184 0.0471405 18.2260 0.0000
Attribute Agreement Analysis
Assessment Agreement Date of study:

Reported by:
Name of product:
Misc:
Within Appraisers Appraiser vs Standard

95.0% CI 95.0% CI
95 Percent 95 Percent
90 90
85 85
Percent
Percent
80 80
75 75
70 70
65 65
1 2 3 1 2 3
Appraiser Appraiser

Page 27 of 31
Verification of Bad Data
This page is used to store the verification result, using Bad data, to compare the output from this template and MINITAB.
Data used:
1 Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
3 Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
4 Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
5 Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
6 Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Fail
14 Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail
21 Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail
22 Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Pass Fail
25 Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail
26 Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass
28 Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass
29 Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
30 Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail
37 Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail
49 Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass
50 Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail

Page 28 of 31
Verify revision before use Verification-Bad Data
Result from this Template
Screen % Effective Screen % Effective

% Appraiser1 %Score vs Attribute2 % Appraiser1 %Score vs Attribute2 % Appraiser1 %Score vs Attribute2
Score3 Score vs Attribute4
Metric
Total Inspected 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
# Matched 31 15 35 17 37 20 33 16
95% UCL 75.3% 44.6% 82.1% 48.8% 85.4% 54.8% 78.8% 46.7%
Score 62.0% 30.0% 70.0% 34.0% 74.0% 40.0% 66.0% 32.0%
95% LCL 47.2% 17.9% 55.4% 21.2% 59.7% 26.4% 51.2% 19.5%
Result Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject Reject
Kappa Analysis
Kappa 0.5882 -0.0234 0.5238 -0.0428 0.5701 0.0152 0.4732 -0.0426
SE 0.02357 0.0471 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816 0.0816
Z 24.9550 -0.4971 6.4153 -0.5247 6.9823 0.1857 5.7961 -0.5219
P 0.0000 0.6904 0.0000 0.7001 0.0000 0.4263 0.0000 0.6991
Result Marginal Reject Marginal Reject Marginal Reject Marginal Reject

False Negative (rejected good product) 3 13.04% 3 13.04% 4 17.39%
False Positive (accepted bad product) 15 55.56% 14 51.85% 13 48.15%
Mixed (decisions are not repeated) 15 30.00% 13 26.00% 17 34.00%
Result Reject Reject Reject
Chart Data
% Appraiser
% Appraiser Score All Operator #1 Operator #2 % Appraiser
95% LCL Operator #3 Score vs Attribute 95% LCL
95% UCL
110.0% 75.3% 82.1% 85.4% 78.8%
110.0%
% Efficiency
% Efficiency
Score100.0% 62.0% 70.0% 74.0% 66.0%

100.0%
95% LCL 47.2% 55.4% 59.7% 51.2%
90.0%
90.0%
80.0% 80.0%
70.0% 70.0%
95% UCL 44.6% 48.8% 54.8% 46.7%
60.0%
Score 60.0% 30.0% 34.0% 40.0% 32.0%
95% LCL
50.0% 17.9% 21.2% 26.4% 19.5%
50.0%
40.0% 40.0%
30.0% 0 0 30.0%
Total Qty 0 0
20.0% 20.0%
10.0% 10.0%
0.0% 0.0%

AND agreed with the known standard
Kappa Value < 0.40 0.4 - 0.75 > 0.75

Page 29 of 31
This results in MINITAB OUTPUT are mark as green color when it has same result as this
template.
————— 9/22/2017 1:33:57 PM ————————————————————
Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.
Verification-BadData.MPJ
Results for: Worksheet 2
Attribute Agreement Analysis for O1T1, O1T2, O1T3, O2T1, O2T2, O2T3, O3T1, O3T2, O3T3
Within Appraisers

1 50 35 70.00 (55.39, 82.14)
2 50 37 74.00 (59.66, 85.37)
3 50 33 66.00 (51.23, 78.79)
# Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.

1 Fail 0.523810 0.0816497 6.41533 0.0000
Pass 0.523810 0.0816497 6.41533 0.0000
2 Fail 0.570106 0.0816497 6.98234 0.0000
Pass 0.570106 0.0816497 6.98234 0.0000
3 Fail 0.473249 0.0816497 5.79610 0.0000
Pass 0.473249 0.0816497 5.79610 0.0000
Each Appraiser vs Standard

1 50 17 34.00 (21.21, 48.77)
2 50 20 40.00 (26.41, 54.82)
3 50 16 32.00 (19.52, 46.70)
# Matched: Appraiser’s assessment across trials agrees with the known standard.
Assessment Disagreement
# Pass / # Fail /
Appraiser Fail Percent Pass Percent # Mixed Percent
1 15 55.56 3 13.04 15 30.00
2 14 51.85 3 13.04 13 26.00
3 13 48.15 4 17.39 17 34.00
# Pass / Fail: Assessments across trials = Pass / standard = Fail.

# Fail / Pass: Assessments across trials = Fail / standard = Pass.
# Mixed: Assessments across trials are not identical.

1 Fail -0.0428393 0.0816497 -0.524672 0.7001
Pass -0.0428393 0.0816497 -0.524672 0.7001
2 Fail 0.0151615 0.0816497 0.185689 0.4263
Pass 0.0151615 0.0816497 0.185689 0.4263
3 Fail -0.0426163 0.0816497 -0.521941 0.6991
Pass -0.0426163 0.0816497 -0.521941 0.6991
Between Appraisers

50 31 62.00 (47.17, 75.35)
# Matched: All appraisers’ assessments agree with each other.

Page 30 of 31

Fail 0.588194 0.0235702 24.9550 0.0000
Pass 0.588194 0.0235702 24.9550 0.0000
All Appraisers vs Standard

50 15 30.00 (17.86, 44.61)
# Matched: All appraisers’ assessments agree with the known standard.

Fail -0.0234314 0.0471405 -0.497055 0.6904
Pass -0.0234314 0.0471405 -0.497055 0.6904
Attribute Agreement Analysis
Assessment Agreement Date of study:

Reported by:
Name of product:
Misc:
Within Appraisers Appraiser vs Standard

95.0% CI 95.0% CI
Percent Percent
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent
Percent
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
1 2 3 1 2 3
Appraiser Appraiser

Page 31 of 31

Gage R&R For Attributes: Instructions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gage R&R For Attributes: Instructions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gage R&R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

SCREEN % EFFECTIVE SCORE(3) ->

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

DATE: Report Ref# : 2017?????

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

DATE: Report Ref# : 2017?????

% APPRAISER SCORE(1) ->

SCREEN % EFFECTIVE SCORE(3) ->

Assessment Disagreement Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %

Acceptance Criteria: Foot Notes

Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:

Name Date Name Date Name Date

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Source All Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3

Assessment Disagreement Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %

Acceptance Criteria: Foot Notes

Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Name Date Name Date Name Date

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Appraiser Score and Standard Calculation

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Kappa: Individual Repeatability

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Kappa: Reproducibility - Between operator

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Reprod Btwn All Reproducibility

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Known Populatio Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Known Populatio Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Source All Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3

Screen % Effective Screen % Effective

Assessment Disagreement Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %

Score 100.0% 78.0% 84.0% 90.0% 80.0%

95% LCL90.0% 64.0% 70.9% 78.2% 66.3%

Acceptance Criteria: Foot Notes

QAF-0084-C Rev C Gage R and R for Attributes

Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.

Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI

# Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.

Fleiss’ Kappa Statistics

Appraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

Each Appraiser vs Standard

Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI

# Pass / Fail: Assessments across trials = Pass / standard = Fail.

Fleiss’ Kappa Statistics

Appraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)