Understanding Attribute Agreement Analysis

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). The process of understanding the defect, choosing and assigning the appropriate code for the defect, identifying and recording the error, and perhaps even assigning a degree of severity to that defect are steps that must occur in a bug measurement system. o Better understanding the conduct of the analysis If the test is planned and designed effectively, it can reveal enough information about the causes of the accuracy problems to justify a decision not to use the attribute analysis. In cases where the trial does not provide sufficient information, the analysis of the attribute agreement allows for a more detailed review to inform the introduction of training changes and error correction in the measurement system. Analytically, this technique is a wonderful idea. But in practice, the technique can be difficult to execute judiciously. First, there is always the question of sample size.

For attribute data, relatively large samples are required to be able to calculate percentages with relatively low confidence intervals. If an expert looks at 50 different error scenarios – twice – and the match rate is 96 percent (48 votes vs. 50), the 95 percent confidence interval ranges from 86.29% to 99.51 percent. It is a fairly large margin of error, especially in terms of the challenge of choosing the scenarios, checking them in depth, making sure the value of the master is assigned, and then convincing the examiner to do the job – twice. If the number of scenarios is increased to 100, the 95 per cent confidence interval for a 96 per cent match rate will be reduced to a range of 90.1 to 98.9 per cent (Figure 2). Yes, for example. B Repeatability is the main problem, evaluators are disoriented or undecided by certain criteria. When it comes to reproducibility, evaluators have strong opinions on certain conditions, but these opinions differ. If the problems are highlighted by several assessors, the problems are naturally systemic or procedural.

If the problems only concern a few assessors, then the problems might simply require a little personal attention. In both cases, training or work aids could be tailored to either specific individuals or all evaluators, depending on the number of evaluators who were guilty of imprecise attribution of attributes. 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. 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.