The review should help determine which specific individuals and codes are the main causes of the problems, and the evaluation of the attribute agreement should help determine the relative contribution of repeatability and reproducibility issues to these specific codes (and individuals). In addition, many bug tracking systems have problems with precision readings that indicate where a defect has occurred, because the location where the defect is detected is recorded and not where the defect appeared. Where the error is found, it does not help much to identify the causes, which is why the accuracy of the site assignment should also be an element of the test. As performing an attribute analysis can be tedious, costly and generally uncomfortable for all stakeholders (the analysis is simple versus execution), it is best to take a moment to really understand what should be done and why. 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. First, the analyst should determine that there is indeed attribute data. One can assume that the assignment of a code – that is, the division of a code into a category – is a decision that characterizes the error with an attribute. Either a category is correctly assigned to an error, or it is not. Similarly, the appropriate source location is either attributed to the defect or not. These are “yes” or “no” and “correct allocation” or “wrong allocation” answers. This part is pretty simple. Second, the evaluation of the attribute agreement should be applied and the detailed results of the audit should provide a number of information that will help to understand how evaluation can be the best way to be organized.
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.