Bonjour,
Exemples :
Explora Nova | CirclesMeasure | ||||
M11 / Bacillus pumilus | |||||
GZ23AA2796-1,1 | 97,0 | % | 97,2 | % | |
GZ23AA2796-1,2 | 96,7 | % | 95,9 | % | |
GZ23AA2821-1,1 | 95,5 | % | 95,0 | % | |
GZ23AA2821-1,2 | 94,5 | % | 93,6 | % | |
GZ23AA2829-1,1 | 97,4 | % | 98,2 | % | |
GZ23AA2829-1,2 | 97,1 | % | 96,2 | % |
Selon vous quel serait le test statistique le plus pertinent pour pouvoir dire que le nouveau logiciel donne des résultats conformes par rapport à l’actuel logiciel et qu’il peut donc être utilisé.
Avant pour qualifier un logiciel on s’accordait simplement +/- 3% entre les 2 mais j’aurai aimé savoir si un test statistique pouvait répondre à cette question et ainsi présenter en Assurance Qualité lors d’audit un dossier plus complet et abouti.
Merci pour votre aide.
Cordialement
Alain PONTONNIER
One thought for you is equivalence testing in JMP: Equivalence Test in JMP .
Hi,
Thank you very much
being more technical than biostatistician I discover JMP.
I will try this solution
I tried editing my initial reply but had some user interface issues... so here some additional thoughts. I'd be very careful to just use one set of data gathered in one bucket of time for work like this. How stable are both measurement systems? How many 'noises' have they been exposed to such a people, materials, environment, equipment, suppliers, and on and on. So some type of process stability work over time should also be included. Control charts are your friend.
Hello @Alain04,
Welcome in the Community !
I completely agree with @P_Bartell about the size and representativeness of your sample. I suppose the dataset displayed here is just a smaller version of a bigger one, but you should take care about the data collected (and the generation process) to make sure your comparison is reliable and "fair". Start first with visualization before doing tests, the visualization (using box-plots for example) might be sufficient for your needs.
Looking at your topics, there might be several options depending on your objectives :
Remember that this equivalence test only test mean difference, so it won't provide information about a difference of variance between the two measuring systems (which might be very informative to highlight a gain in precision for example).
T-test for difference in means :
Also the visualization displayed in this platform might be sufficient to understand if your results are comparable, in terms of means and variance :
You could also use the Measurement Systems Analysis platform to compare the two processes and see how consistents are the results. The visualizations available in this platform are quite helpful to compare the two processes :
Using the Gauge R&R evaluation, you can see (with the small dataset provided) that you may have more variance due to the repeatability than due to a change of measuring process :
These are some options available to analyze your data, but there might be other additional ones. Again, it all depends on your objectives and the data collected.
I join the dataset used to test the three options with the scripts saved so that you can evaluate the different options proposed.
As @P_Bartell, comparing the two processes at a specific time might be informative, but you have to make sure the measuring process is stable and controlled in time.
I hope this response will help you,