Step 5. Make the assessment. Make the samples available to the examiner at random (without knowing which sample is or the other evaluators who are testifying to the assessment) and have the object classified according to the definitions of defects. The following figure shows an example of a graphical output from a data study on MSA attributes. The left side of the diagram shows the agreement inside the examiners (by analogy with repeatability). The right side shows the agreement between the evaluators and the standard. The points represent the actual agreement from the study data. Crosses represent the limits of a 95% confidence interval forecast for the average agreement. Attribute analysis can be an excellent tool for detecting the causes of inaccuracies in a bug tracking system, but it must be used with great care, reflection and minimal complexity, should it ever be used. The best way to do this is to first monitor the database and then use the results of that audit to perform a targeted and optimized analysis of repeatability and reproducibility. Despite these difficulties, performing an attribute analysis on bug tracking systems is not a waste of time.
In fact, it is (or may be) an extremely informative, valuable and necessary exercise. The analysis of attributes should only be applied with caution and with a certain focus. Kappa is interpreted as above: > 0.9 very good chord (green); 0.7 to < 0.9 slightly acceptable, an improvement should be considered (yellow); < 0.7 unacceptable (red). Some attribute tests require little judgment, as the correct answer is obvious. For example, in destructive test results, the entity remained either broke or intact. However, in most cases, the examination of attributes is extremely subjective. If many evaluators evaluate the same thing, they must agree as soon as it is established that the bug tracking system is a system for measuring attributes, the next step is to examine the accuracy and accuracy of the concepts 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).