Talk:ANOVA gauge R&R

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2011; 2012; 2015;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Replicability and Reproducability problems with gauge R&R

So this is about all Wikipedia has on the subject huh?
The thing is, people regularly make hundred million dollar decisions based on results from these things.
More often than not the study is calculated with software or spreadsheet coming from who knows where, numbers go in, numbers come out and nobody involved knows what the heck is going on inside the black box. Run the same test again, get different results - a bit of a replicability problem there. Find a different black box, input same numbers, get significantly different results - a reproducability problem.
Closest I've come to finding a reference example of this kind of study is here MSA_Reference_Manual_4th_Edition.pdf page 127
Problem is, if you redo the calculation yourself you are not going to get exact same results unless you introduce the exact same rounding/loss of significance errors that are done in this "golden" example. This is for GaugeR&R with mean/range method by the way, closest thing to canon reference I have found in any case. 4th edition(Is this latest even?) reference manual By Chrysler, Ford and GM.
Frankly the entire thing smells of consultant job security, but eh.. if you can't beat them - join them. 84.52.48.241 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a scientist turned metrologist who uses this form of study regularly, I can confirm that the people using this are metrologists, not scientists. The difference? A metrologist's task is to measure parts, lots of parts. It's like a real-world version of a monte carlo simulation, as frightening as that sounds. They make and measure hundreds of parts with the goal of saying that this or that technique results in a statistically significant improvement, without understanding why (whereas a scientist could tell you why by studying just a few parts). So if GRR looks like shake-and-bake pseudoresearch, that's because it is designed to be performed by people with a high-school level statistics background. 2620:10D:C091:480:0:0:0:19FF (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting the article referenced spells gauge as gage. The correct or at least more common spelling in this context is gage, not gauge. Reference: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gage Signed (Jay.titus (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Archives (Index)
2011 2012 2015
This page is archived by ClueBot III.