# AIAG MSA: 4th Edition (Bias Study)

#### hazwan2283

##### Starting to get Involved
Hi and Good Day to all the Experts in the Cove. My name is Hazwan and i would like to ask a question about the Bias Study.
I am referring to the AIAG MSA 4th Edition guideline book page 89-92 example of a Bias Study.

In that example, they calculated the repeatability standard deviation first and they used this repeatability standard deviation to calculate %EV.
Bias Analysis assumes that repeatability is acceptable which is why their objective is to find out whether is this repeatability is acceptable or not.

The following is the exact sentence quote from the book:
"The repeatability of 0.2120 was compared to an expected process variation (standard deviation) of 2.5. Since the %EV = 100(.2120/2.5) = 8.5%, the repeatability is acceptable and the bias analysis can continue." Now my questions are, what is the threshold limit of the acceptable repeatability value here? Why 8.5% is acceptable? Are they using less than 10% acceptance criteria of GR&R here?.

Sincere apologies if there are any grammatical error(s) above.

#### Miner

##### Forum Moderator
Unfortunately, the manual never comes out directly and states the acceptance criteria, but it does make a vague reference to GRR, so I think you are safe in making that assumption of 10% acceptance criteria.

#### Enghabashy

##### Quite Involved in Discussions
Some of referenced steps "ANOVA "regarding Bias & acceptance criteria ; for accept Bias or recommend Re-calibration of gauges if the value is critical, example snapshot below also :
1- USE OF STABILITY ANALYSIS1)Obtain a reference standard of a known value (e.g., a gauge block/pin)
.2)On a periodic basis (daily, weekly), measure the standard three to five times. Subgroups should be taken at differing times to include variation due to warm-up, ambient conditions, etc.
3)Enter the data in the Stability worksheet.
4)Interpret the Stability of the gauge using standard control chart analysis
.5)Determine the significance of the Bias, by comparing the t-value of the Bias to the critical t-value. If the t(Bias) is less than the t(critical), the Bias is not significant. If the t(Bias) is greater than than the t(critical), the Bias is significant and should be corrected through calibration.

#### hazwan2283

##### Starting to get Involved
Unfortunately, the manual never comes out directly and states the acceptance criteria, but it does make a vague reference to GRR, so I think you are safe in making that assumption of 10% acceptance criteria.

Hi Miner, i would like to ask 2 questions related to Bias Study to you,..

I noticed that in most of the statistical softwares, be it Minitab, DataLyzer etc i can see that %Bias is always calculated and shown to the user. From my knowledge (quoting from AIAG MSA 4th Edition), in order for us to know whether bias is acceptable or not there are 2 ways,

1. if the p-value associated with the t-statistic bias is less than 0.05, or
2. if zero is between the lower bound and upper bound of bias confidence interval. (i may not phrase it correctly).

So my questions are:
Question 1: why are we calculating % bias here if we are not using it to evaluate the acceptance of Bias?. From my google search, i can't even find the acceptance criteria for this %bias at all...

Question 2: I took the example from AIAG MSA 4th edition whereby they have 15 data (5.8 , 5.7 , 5.9, 5.9, 6, 6.1, 6, 6.1, 6.4, 6.3, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 5.6 and 6) and then i calculated the p-value associated to t-statistic bias. I obtained t-statistic as 0.1217 and the associated p-value as 0.9048
So, if we are using criteria 1 from AIAG MSA which says that bias is acceptable if p-value less than 0.05 which in this case it is not so my earlier conclusion was this bias was clearly not acceptable.

However i further calculated the lower bound and upper bound confidence interval and i got the lower bound as -0.1107 and upper bound as 0.1241. Zero clearly lies between this lower and upper bound which means if we follow criteria 2 the bias study is acceptable.

In the very same AIAG book they mentioned this bias study is acceptable because of criteria 2 but they never mentioned anything about p-value.

So my real question is, does this means every single time when i do bias study i must check for these 2 criterias and if whichever pass that means bias study passed and if both of criteria failed only then i can conclude that this bias study failed?.

#### Bev D

##### Heretical Statistician
Super Moderator
The difference between the p value and confidence intervals ability to ‘detect’ a statistically significant result is well known. It comes from how the statistic is calculated. Modern statisticians including statistical societies now recommend the use of confidence intervals rather p values as they are more useful. (Confidence intervals give some indication of the size of the difference and the sample size used in the study where p values do not. HOWEVER both only indicate statistical significance and not the SIZE or IMPORTANCE of the difference. In your case it is the size of the bias. There are many ssytems that will exhibit a bias between two methods or systems. What this important is the size of the bias vs the specification limits how they were enter mined and the severity of a part that might be accepted when it is slightly out of specification. This comes from your knowledge of the product and how the specifications were determined. The confidence intervals - or p values - are only a first step in this assessment. If there is no statistically significant bias then you can stop the assessment for the effect for the bias since there is none. If there is a statistically significant bias then you must assess it’s effect - no standard can or should provide you with any ’bright line’ guidance on what is acceptable. I would also remind you that if you get one answer from the p value and another from the confidence interval then the size of the bias is most likely pretty small (unless your sample size was incredibly small, like 10 parts rather than 30 parts). I would also remind you that percentages are notoriously misleading - they are a fake statistic that rely more on the denominator than the numerator.

I used to use a tag line here: “the manipulation of mathematical formulas is no substitute for thinking”.

#### Miner

##### Forum Moderator
Hi Miner, i would like to ask 2 questions related to Bias Study to you,..

I noticed that in most of the statistical softwares, be it Minitab, DataLyzer etc i can see that %Bias is always calculated and shown to the user. From my knowledge (quoting from AIAG MSA 4th Edition), in order for us to know whether bias is acceptable or not there are 2 ways,

1. if the p-value associated with the t-statistic bias is less than 0.05, or
2. if zero is between the lower bound and upper bound of bias confidence interval. (i may not phrase it correctly).

So my questions are:
Question 1: why are we calculating % bias here if we are not using it to evaluate the acceptance of Bias?. From my google search, i can't even find the acceptance criteria for this %bias at all...

Question 2: I took the example from AIAG MSA 4th edition whereby they have 15 data (5.8 , 5.7 , 5.9, 5.9, 6, 6.1, 6, 6.1, 6.4, 6.3, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 5.6 and 6) and then i calculated the p-value associated to t-statistic bias. I obtained t-statistic as 0.1217 and the associated p-value as 0.9048
So, if we are using criteria 1 from AIAG MSA which says that bias is acceptable if p-value less than 0.05 which in this case it is not so my earlier conclusion was this bias was clearly not acceptable.

However i further calculated the lower bound and upper bound confidence interval and i got the lower bound as -0.1107 and upper bound as 0.1241. Zero clearly lies between this lower and upper bound which means if we follow criteria 2 the bias study is acceptable.

In the very same AIAG book they mentioned this bias study is acceptable because of criteria 2 but they never mentioned anything about p-value.

So my real question is, does this means every single time when i do bias study i must check for these 2 criterias and if whichever pass that means bias study passed and if both of criteria failed only then i can conclude that this bias study failed?.
All of the AIAG reference manuals were written by teams of people who took responsibility for writing different sections of the manuals. Since there was not a single person writing an entire manual, you do find inconsistencies and omissions due to differences in opinion/approach, or assumptions as to what another person may have covered already.

Regarding Q1, software companies are not statisticians, so when they see that the GRR module used %GRR, they think they need to calculate a %Bias as well. Just because the software provides a value does not mean that value is important.

For Q2, you must have a 1st printing of the MSA 4th edition manual. It had a misprint on the bottom page 88 that said "less than alpha." I have the same printing but have an Errata Sheet from AIAG that corrects this to read "more than alpha." This would resolve your issue. NOTE: there may be rare, borderline situations where you might still get conflicting answers.

Last edited:

#### hazwan2283

##### Starting to get Involved
All of the AIAG reference manuals were written by teams of people who took responsibility for writing different sections of the manuals. Since there was not a single person writing an entire manual, you do find inconsistencies and omissions due to differences in opinion/approach, or assumptions as to what another person may have covered already.

Regarding Q1, software companies are not statisticians, so when they see that the GRR module used %GRR, they think they need to calculate a %Bias as well. Just because the software provides a value does not mean that value is important.

For Q2, you must have a 1st printing of the MSA 4th edition manual. It had a misprint on the bottom page 88 that said "less than alpha." I have the same printing but have an Errata Sheet from AIAG that corrects this to read "more than alpha." This would resolve your issue. NOTE: there may be rare, borderline situations where you might still get conflicting answers.
thank you very very much Miner. *a bow down from me*

Attribute MSA-AIAG 4th How to calculate sample size IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
H Is my MSA Study Spreadsheet okay to AIAG MSA Manual 4th Edition? Using Minitab Software 18
S AIAG MSA 4th Edition Summary APQP and PPAP 4
AIAG MSA 4th Edition Workshop - August 19, 2010 Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
The FILE recommended by AIAG MSA 4ed for LINEARITY Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 0
C AIAG's IATF 16949 section 7.1.5.1.1 - Torque MSA Requirement Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 10
G ANOVA GR&R: Minitab vs AIAG MSA results Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 7
C PPAP Rejection for "MSA-GR&R are not using the latest AIAG format" APQP and PPAP 9
V Latest revisions of Core Tools Manuals from the AIAG (APQP, PPAP, FMEA, SPC and MSA) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
Definition Equipment definition - What does "equipment" mean in the AIAG MSA Manual Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 1
Q Using Traceable Standards - AIAG MSA Manual Chapter II, Section B, 1st bullet Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
K Error in ANOVA table in the AIAG MSA manual? Table A4 Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
P Is there an Errata sheet for AIAG's MSA Manual Fourth Edition Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 7
J Where to buy AIAG MSA 3rd Edition Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
T When is GRR (Gage R&R) required? AIAG MSA Manual Version 4 Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 19
AIAG MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) Manual 3rd ed. Chapter IV Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
O Problems calculating the observed CP - Page 19, AIAG MSA manual 3rd edition Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
M Where did "breakpoint" analysis come from? AIAG MSA book Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
B Operator*part interaction - AIAG MSA manual indicates ANOVA Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
S Are the AIAG document (FMEA, PPAP, SPC, MSA, APQP) guidelines or requirements FMEA and Control Plans 6
P AIAG SPC Manual (ver.1) Interpretations related to Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
C AIAG Attribute MSA - Analytical Method - Page 135 of MSA manual 3rd edition Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 19
A Product or Process Tolerence - AIAG MSA Reference Manual 3rd edition page 3 Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
A Significance of X chart in AIAG MSA sheet for Gage R&R Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 9
B AIAG SPC and MSA guidelines - Which are the latest revisions? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
K Need a version of the AIAG's MSA (Measurement System Anaysis) 3rd Edition Checklist Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
T MSA using tolerances - Page 116 of the AIAG MSA manual Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 30
S Bias Study Confidence Intervals - Page 88 of the AIAG MSA manual Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 11
Errata for the AIAG's MSA Third Edition; 1st and 2nd printings Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
D What the AIAG manual says about the frequency of MSA - Measurement system analysis Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 11
P Has K1 for GR&R's changed in AIAG 3rd ed MSA Manual? Does it affect outcome of study? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
T TS 16949 - AIAG's MSA Manual - Thread Inspection Gage - Attribute Gage R&R Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
G Bias & Linearity Calculations and T Value Formula in the AIAG's MSA Manual Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
S Number of Distinct Data Categories - NDC - AIAG's MSA Manual 3rd edition Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
D Linearity Analysis - AIAG's MSA Manual 3rd Edition - Question Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 10
D Linearity Analysis - Measurement System Analysis - AIAG MSA Manual 3rd Edition Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 14
J AIAG's MSA Manual 3rd Edition Attribute Gage Study - Calculating the UCI and LCI Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 10
Y AIAG's MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3rd Edition - K1, K2, K3 constants Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
V AIAG's MSA III Edition - Forms and Formulas - Attribute Gage R&R Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
M Attribute Gage R&R Form - Long Version - AIAG's MSA Manual Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 35
A Chapter III- Section C of the AIAG MSA manual (3rd Edition) - Tired of analysis? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1
J AIAG MSA and Gage R&R - What does the Process Variation % R&R truly mean? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 11
Differences between the AIAG's MSA Manual 2nd & 3rd Edition? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 5
I AIAG's MSA Manual 3rd Edition - A Look at K Values - Auditor Questions Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 8
M Anyone hear anything about the new AIAG MSA manual? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 12
M Third Edition of the AIAG's MSA Manual Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
B AIAG's MSA Reference Manual, page 95, "Gage R&R Confidence Intervals" Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
F Meeting the AIAG's MSA Manual Gage R&R Bias, Linearity, Stability requirements Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 18
IATF / AIAG: Control Plans and CC / SC requirements FMEA and Control Plans 4
Which gauge R&R to use per AIAG Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2