+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts

  1. #1
    Points: 9, Level: 1
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 41

    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts




    Hello,

    I am trying to figure out how to relate type I and type II error calcuations to c-charts.

    Ive already calculated the 3 sigma control limits (UCL, LCL and CL) for my data.

    My goal is to calculate the "Z" statistic similar to this" z=x-mean/std dev.

    Is there a formula i am missing? Thanks for the help!

  2. #2
    TS Contributor
    Points: 14,811, Level: 78
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Miner's Avatar
    Location
    Greater Milwaukee area
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 405 Times in 363 Posts

    Re: Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts

    c Charts monitor the number of defects per unit area. They are used for count data, and are based on the Poisson distribution. If the counts are large enough, you could use the normal approximation for the Poisson distribution allowing you to calculate a Z statistic.

  3. #3
    Fortran must die
    Points: 58,790, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    noetsi's Avatar
    Posts
    6,532
    Thanks
    692
    Thanked 915 Times in 874 Posts

    Re: Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts

    I rarely work with six sigma, but wouldn't the normal ways of calculating alpha (essentially deciding what this is most commonly .05 which then gives you the chance of a type 1 error) and power allow you to determine type I and type II error rates regardless of the chart?
    "Very few theories have been abandoned because they were found to be invalid on the basis of empirical evidence...." Spanos, 1995

  4. #4
    Points: 9, Level: 1
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 41

    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts

    I tried using the poisson approximation for these types of questions but am still a little unsure of their outcome.

    The approximation basically uses: Z=Xa-lamda/SQRT(lamda), where:

    lamda = mean or C bar
    SQRT lambda = standard deviation of the c-chart
    Xa=Cbar-.5 or Cbar+.5 as appropriate.

    What are your thoughts on using the above?

    Here is one of the questions: Using c charts, you inspect 40 units and find 85 imperfections, assuming the processing is in statistical control calculate:
    3 sigma control limits
    Prob of type I error, and prob of type 2 error should the mean shift to 5.2.

    I calculate my C bar to be 2.125., UCL=6.50, LCL=0 (since <0).

    For prob of type one should i use Z=((6.5+.5)-2.125)/SQRT(2.125)=3.34 or Z=((6.5-.5)-2.125)/SQRT(2.125)=2.65.

    For prob of type two, should i use Z=((6.5+.5)-5.2)/SQRT(2.125)=1.23 or Z=((6.5-.5)-5.2)/SQRT(2.125)=.548.

    Thank you!

  5. #5
    TS Contributor
    Points: 14,811, Level: 78
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Miner's Avatar
    Location
    Greater Milwaukee area
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 405 Times in 363 Posts

    Re: Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts

    Quote Originally Posted by noetsi View Post
    I rarely work with six sigma, but wouldn't the normal ways of calculating alpha (essentially deciding what this is most commonly .05 which then gives you the chance of a type 1 error) and power allow you to determine type I and type II error rates regardless of the chart?
    If the counts are large enough for the normal approximation to the Poisson (or to the Binomial depending on the chart), then yes, you can do exactly what you propose. Otherwise, no.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Miner For This Useful Post:

    noetsi (04-21-2014)

  7. #6
    TS Contributor
    Points: 14,811, Level: 78
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Miner's Avatar
    Location
    Greater Milwaukee area
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 405 Times in 363 Posts

    Re: Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts

    Quote Originally Posted by math&science View Post
    I tried using the poisson approximation for these types of questions but am still a little unsure of their outcome.

    The approximation basically uses: Z=Xa-lamda/SQRT(lamda), where:

    lamda = mean or C bar
    SQRT lambda = standard deviation of the c-chart
    Xa=Cbar-.5 or Cbar+.5 as appropriate.

    What are your thoughts on using the above?

    Here is one of the questions: Using c charts, you inspect 40 units and find 85 imperfections, assuming the processing is in statistical control calculate:
    3 sigma control limits
    Prob of type I error, and prob of type 2 error should the mean shift to 5.2.

    I calculate my C bar to be 2.125., UCL=6.50, LCL=0 (since <0).

    For prob of type one should i use Z=((6.5+.5)-2.125)/SQRT(2.125)=3.34 or Z=((6.5-.5)-2.125)/SQRT(2.125)=2.65.

    For prob of type two, should i use Z=((6.5+.5)-5.2)/SQRT(2.125)=1.23 or Z=((6.5-.5)-5.2)/SQRT(2.125)=.548.

    Thank you!
    This is a link to a Six Sigma Tutorial on this topic that should help.

  8. #7
    TS Contributor
    Points: 22,410, Level: 93
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 940

    Posts
    3,020
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 565 Times in 537 Posts

    Re: Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts

    A side question: I have just see the some definitions of those control charts. I understand that these charts typically use a symmetric confidence/control limits, constructed based on normal approximation.

    But as C-chart is used to monitor counts data, and as what Miner said, one is using Poisson distribution to model these counts, why not construct an exact confidence interval for the mean \lambda? In this way it will no longer be a symmetric pair of limits.

  9. #8
    TS Contributor
    Points: 14,811, Level: 78
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Miner's Avatar
    Location
    Greater Milwaukee area
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 405 Times in 363 Posts

    Re: Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts

    Quote Originally Posted by BGM View Post
    A side question: I have just see the some definitions of those control charts. I understand that these charts typically use a symmetric confidence/control limits, constructed based on normal approximation.

    But as C-chart is used to monitor counts data, and as what Miner said, one is using Poisson distribution to model these counts, why not construct an exact confidence interval for the mean \lambda? In this way it will no longer be a symmetric pair of limits.
    The history of industrial control charts is pretty interesting. One thing that can be confusing to those outside of industrial statistics is the fact that control limits were not derived based on probabilities or on the statistical concept of a confidence interval. They were derived empirically and based on an economic balance between the cost of missing a process signal and the cost of reacting to a false alarm. Based on statistics and probability, one would have expected 95% confidence (~ 2 standard deviations) limits. However, the cost of reacting to false alarms made them settle on 3 standard deviation limits.

    Regarding control charts for attributes. At lower defect rates, the lower control limits are often set at zero. Once you reach a level where the lower control limit is greater than zero, you have reached a point where the normal approximation kicks in and the control limits become symmetrical.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Miner For This Useful Post:

    noetsi (04-21-2014)

  11. #9
    Fortran must die
    Points: 58,790, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    noetsi's Avatar
    Posts
    6,532
    Thanks
    692
    Thanked 915 Times in 874 Posts

    Re: Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts

    I often have wondered in reading six sigma if they were derived from stats, because some of the equations seem to contradict statistics outside six sigma. Now I understand better.
    "Very few theories have been abandoned because they were found to be invalid on the basis of empirical evidence...." Spanos, 1995

  12. #10
    TS Contributor
    Points: 14,811, Level: 78
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Miner's Avatar
    Location
    Greater Milwaukee area
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 405 Times in 363 Posts

    Re: Relating Type I and Type II Error to C-charts


    One of the areas that ignites some furious debate is the concept of the 1.5 sigma shift. Here are two articles that discuss the origin of the concept and a possible basis for it.

    My own position on the issue, is that I know from personal experience that manufacturing processes do drift from the target value, even when under statistical process control (SPC). However, the magnitude of that drift varies greatly depending on the particular process and the use of automated process controls. 1.5 sigma is as good an estimate as any if you have little process knowledge, but if you do have process knowledge, you should use that instead.

+ Reply to Thread

           




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts






Advertise on Talk Stats