ASTM D6708-13e1
(Practice)Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material
Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice can be used to determine if a constant, proportional, or linear bias correction can improve the degree of agreement between two methods that purport to measure the same property of a material.
5.2 The bias correction developed in this practice can be applied to a single result (X) obtained from one test method (method X) to obtain a predicted result ( Y^) for the other test method (method Y).
Note 6: Users are cautioned to ensure that Y^ is within the scope of method Y before its use.
5.3 The between methods reproducibility established by this practice can be used to construct an interval around Y^ that would contain the result of test method Y, if it were conducted, with about 95 % confidence.
5.4 This practice can be used to guide commercial agreements and product disposition decisions involving test methods that have been evaluated relative to each other in accordance with this practice.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers statistical methodology for assessing the expected agreement between two standard test methods that purport to measure the same property of a material, and deciding if a simple linear bias correction can further improve the expected agreement. It is intended for use with results collected from an interlaboratory study meeting the requirement of Practice D6300 or equivalent (for example, ISO 4259). The interlaboratory study must be conducted on at least ten materials that span the intersecting scopes of the test methods, and results must be obtained from at least six laboratories using each method.
1.2 The statistical methodology is based on the premise that a bias correction will not be needed. In the absence of strong statistical evidence that a bias correction would result in better agreement between the two methods, a bias correction is not made. If a bias correction is required, then the parsimony principle is followed whereby a simple correction is to be favored over a more complex one.
Note 1: Failure to adhere to the parsimony principle generally results in models that are over-fitted and do not perform well in practice.
1.3 The bias corrections of this practice are limited to a constant correction, proportional correction or a linear (proportional + constant) correction.
1.4 The bias-correction methods of this practice are method symmetric, in the sense that equivalent corrections are obtained regardless of which method is bias-corrected to match the other.
1.5 A methodology is presented for establishing the 95 % confidence limit (designated by this practice as the between methods reproducibility) for the difference between two results where each result is obtained by a different operator using different apparatus and each applying one of the two methods X and Y on identical material, where one of the methods has been appropriately bias-corrected in accordance with this practice.
Note 2: In earlier versions of this standard practice, the term “cross-method reproducibility” was used in place of the term “between methods reproducibility.” The change was made because the “between methods reproducibility” term is more intuitive and less confusing. It is important to note that these two terms are synonymous and interchangeable with one another, especially in cases where the “cross-method reproducibility” term was subsequently referenced by name in methods where a D6708 assessment was performed, before the change in terminology in this standard practice was adopted.
Note 3: Users are cautioned against applying the between methods reproducibility as calculated from this practice to materials that are significantly different in composition from those actually studied, as the ability of this practice to detect and address sample-specific biases (see 6.8) is dependent on the materials selected for the interlaboratory study. When sample-specific biases are present, the types and ranges of samples may need to be expanded significa...
General Information
Relations
Buy Standard
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
´1
Designation: D6708 − 13 AnAmerican National Standard
Standard Practice for
Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected
Agreement Between Two Test Methods that Purport to
1
Measure the Same Property of a Material
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D6708; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision.Anumber in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval.A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1
ε NOTE—Eq X2.1 and Eq X2.2 in subsection X2.2 were corrected editorially in February 2015.
1. Scope 1.5 A methodology is presented for establishing the 95%
confidence limit (designated by this practice as the between
1.1 This practice covers statistical methodology for assess-
methods reproducibility) for the difference between two results
ingtheexpectedagreementbetweentwostandardtestmethods
where each result is obtained by a different operator using
that purport to measure the same property of a material, and
different apparatus and each applying one of the two methods
deciding if a simple linear bias correction can further improve
X and Y on identical material, where one of the methods has
the expected agreement. It is intended for use with results
been appropriately bias-corrected in accordance with this
collected from an interlaboratory study meeting the require-
practice.
mentofPracticeD6300orequivalent(forexample,ISO4259).
NOTE 2—In earlier versions of this standard practice, the term “cross-
The interlaboratory study must be conducted on at least ten
method reproducibility” was used in place of the term “between methods
materials that span the intersecting scopes of the test methods,
reproducibility.” The change was made because the “between methods
andresultsmustbeobtainedfromatleastsixlaboratoriesusing
reproducibility” term is more intuitive and less confusing. It is important
each method.
tonotethatthesetwotermsaresynonymousandinterchangeablewithone
another,especiallyincaseswherethe“cross-methodreproducibility”term
1.2 The statistical methodology is based on the premise that
was subsequently referenced by name in methods where a D6708
a bias correction will not be needed. In the absence of strong
assessment was performed, before the change in terminology in this
statistical evidence that a bias correction would result in better
standard practice was adopted.
agreement between the two methods, a bias correction is not
NOTE 3—Users are cautioned against applying the between methods
reproducibility as calculated from this practice to materials that are
made. If a bias correction is required, then the parsimony
significantly different in composition from those actually studied, as the
principle is followed whereby a simple correction is to be
ability of this practice to detect and address sample-specific biases (see
favored over a more complex one.
6.8) is dependent on the materials selected for the interlaboratory study.
When sample-specific biases are present, the types and ranges of samples
NOTE 1—Failure to adhere to the parsimony principle generally results
may need to be expanded significantly from the minimum of ten as
in models that are over-fitted and do not perform well in practice.
specified in this practice in order to obtain a more comprehensive and
1.3 The bias corrections of this practice are limited to a
reliable 95% confidence limits for between methods reproducibility that
constantcorrection,proportionalcorrectionoralinear(propor- adequately cover the range of sample specific biases for different types of
materials.
tional + constant) correction.
1.6 This practice is intended for test methods which mea-
1.4 The bias-correction methods of this practice are method
sure quantitative (numerical) properties of petroleum or petro-
symmetric,inthesensethatequivalentcorrectionsareobtained
leum products.
regardless of which method is bias-corrected to match the
1.7 The statistical methodology outlined in this practice is
other.
also applicable for assessing the expected agreement between
anytwotestmethodsthatpurporttomeasurethesameproperty
1
of a material, provided the results are obtained on the same
This practice is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee D02 on Petroleum
Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants and is the direct responsibility of Subcom-
comparison sample set, the standard error associated with each
mittee D02.94 on Coordinating Subcommittee on QualityAssurance and Statistics.
test result is known, the sample set design meets the require-
Current edition approved May 1, 2013. Published June 2013. Originally
ment of this practice, and the statistical degree of freedom of
approved in 2001. Last previous edition approved in 2008 as D6708–08. DOI:
10.1520/D
...
This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
´1
Designation: D6708 − 13 D6708 − 13 An American National Standard
Standard Practice for
Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected
Agreement Between Two Test Methods that Purport to
1
Measure the Same Property of a Material
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D6708; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1
ε NOTE—Eq X2.1 and Eq X2.2 in subsection X2.2 were corrected editorially in February 2015.
1. Scope
1.1 This practice covers statistical methodology for assessing the expected agreement between two standard test methods that
purport to measure the same property of a material, and deciding if a simple linear bias correction can further improve the expected
agreement. It is intended for use with results collected from an interlaboratory study meeting the requirement of Practice D6300
or equivalent (for example, ISO 4259). The interlaboratory study must be conducted on at least ten materials that span the
intersecting scopes of the test methods, and results must be obtained from at least six laboratories using each method.
1.2 The statistical methodology is based on the premise that a bias correction will not be needed. In the absence of strong
statistical evidence that a bias correction would result in better agreement between the two methods, a bias correction is not made.
If a bias correction is required, then the parsimony principle is followed whereby a simple correction is to be favored over a more
complex one.
NOTE 1—Failure to adhere to the parsimony principle generally results in models that are over-fitted and do not perform well in practice.
1.3 The bias corrections of this practice are limited to a constant correction, proportional correction or a linear (proportional +
constant) correction.
1.4 The bias-correction methods of this practice are method symmetric, in the sense that equivalent corrections are obtained
regardless of which method is bias-corrected to match the other.
1.5 A methodology is presented for establishing the 95 % confidence limit (designated by this practice as the between methods
reproducibility) for the difference between two results where each result is obtained by a different operator using different apparatus
and each applying one of the two methods X and Y on identical material, where one of the methods has been appropriately
bias-corrected in accordance with this practice.
NOTE 2—In earlier versions of this standard practice, the term “cross-method reproducibility” was used in place of the term “between methods
reproducibility.” The change was made because the “between methods reproducibility” term is more intuitive and less confusing. It is important to note
that these two terms are synonymous and interchangeable with one another, especially in cases where the “cross-method reproducibility” term was
subsequently referenced by name in methods where a D6708 assessment was performed, before the change in terminology in this standard practice was
adopted.
NOTE 3—Users are cautioned against applying the between methods reproducibility as calculated from this practice to materials that are significantly
different in composition from those actually studied, as the ability of this practice to detect and address sample-specific biases (see 6.8) is dependent on
the materials selected for the interlaboratory study. When sample-specific biases are present, the types and ranges of samples may need to be expanded
significantly from the minimum of ten as specified in this practice in order to obtain a more comprehensive and reliable 95 % confidence limits for
between methods reproducibility that adequately cover the range of sample specific biases for different types of materials.
1.6 This practice is intended for test methods which measure quantitative (numerical) properties of petroleum or petroleum
products.
1.7 The statistical methodology outlined in this practice is also applicable for assessing the expected agreement between any
two test methods that purport to measure the same property of a material, provided the results are obtained on the same comparison
sample set, the standard error associated with each test result is known, the sample set design meets the requirement of this practice,
and the statistical degree of freedom of the data set exceeds 30.
1
This practi
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.