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.

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 ( ˆY) for the other test method (method Y).

Note 7—Users are cautioned to ensure that ˆY is within the scope of method Y before its use.

The between methods reproducibility established by this practice can be used to construct an interval around ˆY that would contain the result of test method Y, if it were conducted, with about 95 % confidence.

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.

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 D 6300 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.

Note 1—Examples of standard test methods are those developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies such as ASTM, IP/BSI, DIN, AFNOR, CGSB.

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 2—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 3—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 D 6708 assessment was performed, before the change in terminology in this standard practice was adopted.

Note 4—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.