Hellenic Complex Systems Laboratory
Technical Report No IV

Calculation of the confidence bounds for the fraction
nonconforming of normal populations of measurements
in clinical laboratory medicine
Aristides T. Hatjimihail, M.D., Ph.D.

Drama 2015

HCSLTR04
Hellenic Complex Systems Laboratory,
K. Palamas 21,
GR-66100 Drama, Greece
www.hcsl.com
Copyright © Aristides T. Hatjimihail, 2015

2

1. Abstract
The fraction nonconforming is a key quality measure used in statistical quality control
design in clinical laboratory medicine. The confidence bounds of normal populations of
measurements for the fraction nonconforming each of the lower and upper quality
specification limits when both the random and the systematic error are unknown can be
calculated using the noncentral t-distribution, as it is described in detail and illustrated with
examples.

3

2. Introduction
The quality control (QC) in clinical laboratory medicine is based mainly on the control
charts for variables. Although the fraction nonconforming is used in the control charts for
attributes, it is also a useful quality measure related to various process capability indices
(Pearn & Kotz 2006). It is defined as “the ratio of the items nonconforming to the total
number of items in a subgroup” (Juran et al. 1999).
The quality control design process (Hatjimihail 1992) is based on the quality
specifications of the maximum total allowable analytical error, the upper acceptable bound for
the fraction nonconforming, the lower acceptable bounds for the probabilities for the critical
random and systematic error detection, and the upper acceptable bound for the false rejection
(CLSI 2012; Linnet 1989).
It includes the following steps:
1. Estimation of the error of the measurement procedure based on a sample of n
control measurements.
2. Calculation of the critical errors of the measurement procedure based on an upper
acceptable bound for the expected fraction nonconforming the maximum total
allowable analytical error quality specification. This bound is usually set equal to
0.10.
3. Definition of the decision bounds for the quality control rules based on the lower
acceptable bounds for the probabilities for the critical errors detection and the
upper acceptable bound for false rejection.
These steps are performed at typically one to three levels of the measurand.
Therefore, the expected fraction nonconforming is a key measure of the quality control
design process. While this measure is routinely calculated in the clinical laboratories, very
little attention has been given to its confidence bounds.
4

In general, for the quality control estimations in laboratory medicine it is assumed that the
error of a measurement procedure is normally distributed with known mean and standard
deviation. Usually in practice we only know the mean x and the standard deviation s of a
sample of n control measurements at each of various levels of the measurand.
As both the systematic and the random error of the measurement procedure are unknown
lower and upper bounds for the tail probabilities of the lower (xLSL ), and the upper (xUSL)
quality specifications of the measurement x can be calculated with confidence level γ using
the noncentral t-distribution (1987) , as described in detail in the Materials and Methods
section.
Therefore, the purpose of this technical report is to introduce the noncentral t-distribution
into clinical laboratory medicine and to describe its application for the calculation of the
confidence bounds of the fraction nonconforming each of the lower and upper quality
specification limits of populations of normal measurements in a clinical laboratory setting.

3. Materials and Methods
If Z a standard normal N (0, 1) deviate and V a chi-square deviate with v degrees of
freedom, the distribution of the ratio is the noncentral t-distribution with ν degrees of freedom
and noncentrality parameter δ.

T , 

Z 
V

(3.1)



The cumulative density function of a noncentral t-distribution with ν degrees of freedom
and noncentrality parameter δ is defined as (Owen 1965):

5

F , (t ) 

2
( / 2) 2
1/2

( 2)/2





0

 tx


  x v 1 ( x )dx
 v


(3.2)

where ( x ) the gamma function and:

2

 (x ) 

1  x2
e
2

(3.3)

and

x

( x )    (t )dt


(3.4)

Scholz (Scholz 1994) presents an elegant derivation of the lower and upper bounds for the
lower tail probability p(xLSL) of a normal population with unknown mean μ and unknown
standard deviation σ.

Briefly,

 x 
p  xLSL   p  xLSL ,  ,   P ,  X  xLSL   Φ  LSL

 σ 

(3.5)

If we denote with pˆUL   an upper bound for p(xLSL) with confidence level γ then

P ,  pˆUL    p  xLSL    

(3.6)

Z  n   X  / 

(3.7)

Let

a standard normal deviate, and

6

V   n  1 S 2 /  2

(3.8)

a chi-square deviate with n-1 degrees of freedom.
If



n  xLSL   



 nΦ1  p  xLSL  

(3.9)

then,

n  xLSL  x 

s
n  xLSL   





n  xLSL   





n   X 



s
n   X 

  n  1 S 


2
 

n 1



2




Z 

 Tn 1,
V
n 1

(3.10)

where the Tn 1, has by definition a noncentral t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom and
noncentrality parameter δ. According to the probability integral transformation (Qeuesenberry
2006) the random variable U is uniformly distributed over (0,1). Therefore,

 n  xLSL  X  
U  Fn 1,  
  Fn 1,  Tn 1,  


S



(3.11)

  P(U  1   )

(3.12)

As Fn 1,   x  is a decreasing function of δ we have

7

 n  xLSL  X  
Fn 1,  
  1      ˆ


S



(3.13)

where ˆ is estimated by the following equation:

 n  xLSL  X  
Fn 1, ˆ 
  1


S



(3.14)

Consequently, the upper bound with confidence level γ for the fraction non conforming the
lower quality specification limit is calculated as

 ˆ 
pˆUL    Φ 

 n

(3.15)

P ,  pˆUL    p  xLSL      P ,  pˆUL    p  xLSL   1  

(3.16)

As

the lower bound with confidence level γ for the fraction non conforming the lower quality
specification limit is calculated as

pˆ LL    pˆUL 1   

(3.17)

In addition, if we denote with pˆUU   the upper bound with confidence level γ for the
fraction non conforming the upper quality specification limit then

P ,  pˆUU    p  xUSL     
P , 1  pˆUU    1  p  xUSL   1  

(3.18)

Therefore, the lower and upper bounds with confidence level γ for the fraction non
conforming the upper quality specification limit are calculated respectively as

8

pˆ ' LU    1  pˆUU  

(3.19)

pˆ 'UU    1  pˆUU 1   

(3.20)

and

If we denote with c the true value of the measurand of the control material, and emax the
maximum total clinically allowable analytical error (Linnet 1989), expressed as a ratio to the
true value, then

xLSL  c(1  emax )

(3.21)

xUSL  c(1  emax )

(3.22)

and

To illustrate the application of the noncentral t-distribution for the calculation of the
confidence bounds of the fraction nonconforming of normal populations of measurements in a
clinical laboratory setting I calculated upper and lower confidence bounds for the fraction
nonconforming the upper and lower quality specification limits of populations of normal
measurements, assuming unknown systematic and random errors of the measurement
procedure. The calculations were performed by MATLAB©, ver. 2012b, using the method
described by Owen (Owen 1965).
It was assumed that a reference control material with a measurand with an assigned value
of 100.00 units has been measured repeatedly by the measuring procedure and that the sample
mean and standard deviation of the measurand were estimated from samples of 20 and 40
control measurements. It was also assumed that both the systematic and the random error of
the measurement procedure were unknown and that the uncertainty of the assigned value of

9

the measurand of the control material was negligible. The lower and upper confidence bounds
for the fraction nonconforming each of the lower and upper quality specifications of the
population of the measurements were calculated by the noncentral t-distribution as described
previously.
The parameters of these calculations are presented in the Table 1.

figures
tables
assigned value of the measurand
of the control material
sample mean

μ

x
increments of the sample mean
sample s.d.
increments of the sample s.d.
total allowable analytical error
confidence level
sample size

s
emax
γ
n

1-2
2
100.00

3-4
3
100.00

5-6
4
100.00

7-8
5
100.00

100.00106.00

100.00106.00

100.00106.00

100.00106.00

0.10
0.10-6.00
0.10
0.10
0.95
20

0.10
0.10-6.00
0.10
0.10
0.95
40

0.10
0.10-6.00
0.10
0.20
0.95
20

0.10
0.10-6.00
0.10
0.20
0.95
40

Table 1: The parameters of the calculations of the confidence bounds for the fraction
nonconforming of the populations of the normal control measurements.

4. Results
The results of the study are described in the following subsections 4.1 and 4.2. They are
presented in the tables 2-5 and in the figures 1- 8. They are also presented in the respective
MATLAB© figures included in the supporting information file MATLAB_Figures.zip so that
the data can be explored interactively in the MATLAB© environment.

10

confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming at a 95% confidence level
parameters of the
sample
s
x
100.00

101.00

102.00

103.00

104.00

105.00

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00

size of the control measurements sample n = 20
total allowable analytical error taae = 0.10
fraction nonconforming the lower quality
fraction nonconforming the upper quality
specification limit
specification limit
expected
lower bound
upper bound
expected
lower bound
upper bound
7,62E-24
2,87E-07
4,29E-04
6,21E-03
2,28E-02
1,91E-28
1,90E-08
1,23E-04
2,98E-03
1,39E-02
1,78E-33
9,87E-10
3,17E-05
1,35E-03
8,20E-03
6,12E-39
4,02E-11
7,34E-06
5,77E-04
4,66E-03
7,79E-45
1,28E-12
1,53E-06
2,33E-04
2,56E-03
3,67E-51
3,19E-14
2,87E-07
8,84E-05
1,35E-03

2,14E-33
8,69E-10
2,63E-05
1,09E-03
6,56E-03
5,78E-40
1,85E-11
4,53E-06
3,94E-04
3,33E-03
3,76E-47
2,78E-13
6,72E-07
1,31E-04
1,61E-03
5,81E-55
2,93E-15
8,54E-08
3,98E-05
7,34E-04
2,18E-63
2,17E-17
9,31E-09
1,11E-05
3,18E-04
1,96E-72
1,13E-19
8,69E-10
2,85E-06
1,31E-04

2,85E-15
5,32E-05
5,36E-03
2,99E-02
7,01E-02
4,15E-18
9,75E-06
2,42E-03
1,86E-02
5,07E-02
3,30E-21
1,54E-06
1,02E-03
1,12E-02
3,58E-02
1,43E-24
2,10E-07
4,07E-04
6,47E-03
2,48E-02
3,37E-28
2,48E-08
1,52E-04
3,63E-03
1,68E-02
4,33E-32
2,51E-09
5,32E-05
1,96E-03
1,12E-02

7,62E-24
2,87E-07
4,29E-04
6,21E-03
2,28E-02
1,13E-19
3,40E-06
1,35E-03
1,22E-02
3,59E-02
6,22E-16
3,17E-05
3,83E-03
2,28E-02
5,48E-02
1,28E-12
2,33E-04
9,82E-03
4,01E-02
8,08E-02
9,87E-10
1,35E-03
2,28E-02
6,68E-02
1,15E-01
2,87E-07
6,21E-03
4,78E-02
1,06E-01
1,59E-01

2,14E-33
8,69E-10
2,63E-05
1,09E-03
6,56E-03
1,92E-27
2,88E-08
1,31E-04
2,79E-03
1,22E-02
4,14E-22
6,72E-07
5,59E-04
6,56E-03
2,17E-02
2,17E-17
1,11E-05
2,06E-03
1,42E-02
3,67E-02
2,78E-13
1,31E-04
6,56E-03
2,84E-02
5,88E-02
8,69E-10
1,09E-03
1,81E-02
5,25E-02
8,99E-02

2,85E-15
5,32E-05
5,36E-03
2,99E-02
7,01E-02
1,07E-12
2,51E-04
1,12E-02
4,66E-02
9,50E-02
2,19E-10
1,02E-03
2,19E-02
7,01E-02
1,26E-01
2,48E-08
3,63E-03
4,03E-02
1,02E-01
1,64E-01
1,54E-06
1,12E-02
7,01E-02
1,44E-01
2,10E-01
5,32E-05
2,99E-02
1,15E-01
1,98E-01
2,63E-01

Table 2: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the lower and upper quality
specification limits assuming a true value of the measurand of the control material equal to
100.00 measurement units, a sample of 20 control measurements, and a total allowable
analytical error equal to 0.10.

11

confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming at a 95% confidence level
parameters of the
sample
s
x
100.00

101.00

102.00

103.00

104.00

105.00

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00

size of the control measurements sample n = 40
total allowable analytical error taae = 0.10
fraction nonconforming the lower quality
fraction nonconforming the upper quality
specification limit
specification limit
expected
lower bound
upper bound
expected
lower bound
upper bound
7,62E-24
2,87E-07
4,29E-04
6,21E-03
2,28E-02
1,91E-28
1,90E-08
1,23E-04
2,98E-03
1,39E-02
1,78E-33
9,87E-10
3,17E-05
1,35E-03
8,20E-03
6,12E-39
4,02E-11
7,34E-06
5,77E-04
4,66E-03
7,79E-45
1,28E-12
1,53E-06
2,33E-04
2,56E-03
3,67E-51
3,19E-14
2,87E-07
8,84E-05
1,35E-03

1,85E-30
5,14E-09
6,17E-05
1,86E-03
9,58E-03
2,01E-36
1,55E-10
1,25E-05
7,31E-04
5,15E-03
5,97E-43
3,41E-12
2,19E-06
2,67E-04
2,64E-03
4,90E-50
5,46E-14
3,35E-07
9,02E-05
1,29E-03
1,10E-57
6,34E-16
4,45E-08
2,82E-05
6,01E-04
6,80E-66
5,35E-18
5,14E-09
8,17E-06
2,67E-04

1,05E-17
1,20E-05
2,61E-03
1,91E-02
5,09E-02
4,82E-21
1,65E-06
1,04E-03
1,10E-02
3,51E-02
1,08E-24
1,91E-07
3,81E-04
6,12E-03
2,36E-02
1,19E-28
1,85E-08
1,30E-04
3,25E-03
1,54E-02
6,39E-33
1,50E-09
4,11E-05
1,66E-03
9,84E-03
1,67E-37
1,02E-10
1,20E-05
8,12E-04
6,12E-03

7,62E-24
2,87E-07
4,29E-04
6,21E-03
2,28E-02
1,13E-19
3,40E-06
1,35E-03
1,22E-02
3,59E-02
6,22E-16
3,17E-05
3,83E-03
2,28E-02
5,48E-02
1,28E-12
2,33E-04
9,82E-03
4,01E-02
8,08E-02
9,87E-10
1,35E-03
2,28E-02
6,68E-02
1,15E-01
2,87E-07
6,21E-03
4,78E-02
1,06E-01
1,59E-01

1,85E-30
5,14E-09
6,17E-05
1,86E-03
9,58E-03
4,68E-25
1,24E-07
2,67E-04
4,38E-03
1,70E-02
3,27E-20
2,19E-06
1,01E-03
9,58E-03
2,88E-02
6,34E-16
2,82E-05
3,32E-03
1,95E-02
4,66E-02
3,41E-12
2,67E-04
9,58E-03
3,69E-02
7,22E-02
5,14E-09
1,86E-03
2,43E-02
6,50E-02
1,07E-01

1,05E-17
1,20E-05
2,61E-03
1,91E-02
5,09E-02
1,12E-14
7,38E-05
6,12E-03
3,18E-02
7,21E-02
5,83E-12
3,81E-04
1,33E-02
5,09E-02
9,97E-02
1,50E-09
1,66E-03
2,70E-02
7,84E-02
1,34E-01
1,91E-07
6,12E-03
5,09E-02
1,16E-01
1,77E-01
1,20E-05
1,91E-02
8,97E-02
1,66E-01
2,28E-01

Table 3: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the lower and upper quality
specification limits assuming a true value of the measurand of the control material equal to
100.00 measurement units, a sample of 40 control measurements, and a total allowable
analytical error equal to 0.10.

12

confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming at a 95% confidence level
parameters of the
sample
s
x
100.00

101.00

102.00

103.00

104.00

105.00

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00

size of the control measurements sample n = 20
total allowable analytical error taae = 0.20
fraction nonconforming the lower quality
fraction nonconforming the upper quality
specification limit
specification limit
expected
lower bound
upper bound
expected
lower bound
upper bound
2,75E-89
7,62E-24
1,31E-11
2,87E-07
3,17E-05
3,28E-98
4,32E-26
1,28E-12
7,60E-08
1,33E-05
1,44E-107
1,91E-28
1,12E-13
1,90E-08
5,41E-06
2,33E-117
6,60E-31
8,83E-15
4,46E-09
2,11E-06
1,39E-127
1,78E-33
6,22E-16
9,87E-10
7,93E-07
3,06E-138
3,73E-36
3,93E-17
2,05E-10
2,87E-07

5,76E-127
2,14E-33
5,94E-16
8,69E-10
6,72E-07
9,84E-140
1,33E-36
2,17E-17
1,32E-10
1,99E-07
4,03E-153
5,78E-40
6,79E-19
1,85E-11
5,55E-08
3,95E-167
1,76E-43
1,82E-20
2,37E-12
1,47E-08
9,26E-182
3,76E-47
4,14E-22
2,78E-13
3,67E-09
5,20E-197
5,56E-51
8,08E-24
2,98E-14
8,69E-10

1,62E-55
2,85E-15
1,05E-07
5,32E-05
1,02E-03
5,34E-61
1,17E-16
2,48E-08
2,32E-05
5,94E-04
9,58E-67
4,15E-18
5,48E-09
9,75E-06
3,36E-04
9,31E-73
1,26E-19
1,13E-09
3,95E-06
1,86E-04
4,91E-79
3,30E-21
2,19E-10
1,54E-06
1,01E-04
1,41E-85
7,40E-23
3,98E-11
5,80E-07
5,32E-05

2,75E-89
7,62E-24
1,31E-11
2,87E-07
3,17E-05
8,53E-81
1,05E-21
1,20E-10
1,02E-06
7,23E-05
9,74E-73
1,13E-19
9,87E-10
3,40E-06
1,59E-04
4,11E-65
9,48E-18
7,28E-09
1,07E-05
3,37E-04
6,39E-58
6,22E-16
4,82E-08
3,17E-05
6,87E-04
3,67E-51
3,19E-14
2,87E-07
8,84E-05
1,35E-03

5,76E-127
2,14E-33
5,94E-16
8,69E-10
6,72E-07
8,09E-115
2,42E-30
1,39E-14
5,22E-09
2,15E-06
2,72E-103
1,92E-27
2,78E-13
2,88E-08
6,52E-06
2,19E-92
1,06E-24
4,75E-12
1,45E-07
1,87E-05
4,23E-82
4,14E-22
6,94E-11
6,72E-07
5,08E-05
1,96E-72
1,13E-19
8,69E-10
2,85E-06
1,31E-04

1,62E-55
2,85E-15
1,05E-07
5,32E-05
1,02E-03
2,66E-50
5,95E-14
4,16E-07
1,18E-04
1,73E-03
2,37E-45
1,07E-12
1,54E-06
2,51E-04
2,85E-03
1,15E-40
1,65E-11
5,36E-06
5,16E-04
4,59E-03
3,03E-36
2,19E-10
1,74E-05
1,02E-03
7,24E-03
4,33E-32
2,51E-09
5,32E-05
1,96E-03
1,12E-02

Table 4: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the lower and upper quality
specification limits assuming a true value of the measurand of the control material equal to
100.00 measurement units, a sample of 20 control measurements, and a total allowable
analytical error equal to 0.20.

13

confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming at a 95% confidence level
parameters of the
sample
s
x
100.00

101.00

102.00

103.00

104.00

105.00

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00

size of the sample of the measurements n = 40
total allowable analytical error taae = 0.20
fraction nonconforming the lower quality
fraction nonconforming the upper quality
specification limit
specification limit
expected
lower bound
upper bound
lower bound
upper bound
expected
2,75E-89
7,62E-24
1,31E-11
2,87E-07
3,17E-05
3,28E-98
4,32E-26
1,28E-12
7,60E-08
1,33E-05
1,44E-107
1,91E-28
1,12E-13
1,90E-08
5,41E-06
2,33E-117
6,60E-31
8,83E-15
4,46E-09
2,11E-06
1,39E-127
1,78E-33
6,22E-16
9,87E-10
7,93E-07
3,06E-138
3,73E-36
3,93E-17
2,05E-10
2,87E-07

2,23E-115
1,85E-30
1,28E-14
5,14E-09
2,19E-06
5,78E-127
2,26E-33
6,34E-16
9,30E-10
7,21E-07
4,11E-139
2,01E-36
2,72E-17
1,55E-10
2,26E-07
7,98E-152
1,28E-39
1,01E-18
2,40E-11
6,74E-08
4,24E-165
5,97E-43
3,27E-20
3,41E-12
1,91E-08
6,16E-179
2,01E-46
9,16E-22
4,49E-13
5,14E-09

4,21E-65
1,05E-17
8,16E-09
1,20E-05
3,81E-04
1,47E-71
2,46E-19
1,50E-09
4,56E-06
2,02E-04
2,48E-78
4,82E-21
2,55E-10
1,65E-06
1,04E-04
2,04E-85
7,90E-23
4,01E-11
5,74E-07
5,21E-05
8,18E-93
1,08E-24
5,83E-12
1,91E-07
2,54E-05
1,59E-100
1,24E-26
7,82E-13
6,07E-08
1,20E-05

2,75E-89
7,62E-24
1,31E-11
2,87E-07
3,17E-05
8,53E-81
1,05E-21
1,20E-10
1,02E-06
7,23E-05
9,74E-73
1,13E-19
9,87E-10
3,40E-06
1,59E-04
4,11E-65
9,48E-18
7,28E-09
1,07E-05
3,37E-04
6,39E-58
6,22E-16
4,82E-08
3,17E-05
6,87E-04
3,67E-51
3,19E-14
2,87E-07
8,84E-05
1,35E-03

2,23E-115
1,85E-30
1,28E-14
5,14E-09
2,19E-06
2,34E-104
1,09E-27
2,24E-13
2,63E-08
6,32E-06
6,75E-94
4,68E-25
3,41E-12
1,24E-07
1,73E-05
5,33E-84
1,45E-22
4,51E-11
5,42E-07
4,53E-05
1,15E-74
3,27E-20
5,17E-10
2,19E-06
1,13E-04
6,80E-66
5,35E-18
5,14E-09
8,17E-06
2,67E-04

4,21E-65
1,05E-17
8,16E-09
1,20E-05
3,81E-04
5,88E-59
3,74E-16
4,10E-08
3,05E-05
7,01E-04
4,00E-53
1,12E-14
1,91E-07
7,38E-05
1,25E-03
1,32E-47
2,78E-13
8,21E-07
1,71E-04
2,18E-03
2,13E-42
5,83E-12
3,27E-06
3,81E-04
3,70E-03
1,67E-37
1,02E-10
1,20E-05
8,12E-04
6,12E-03

Table 5: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the lower and upper quality
specification limits assuming a true value of the measurand of the control material equal to
100.00 measurement units, a sample of 40 control measurements, and a total allowable
analytical error equal to 0.20.

4.1. Fraction nonconforming the lower quality specification limit
Figures 1, 3, 5, and 7 present the expected fraction nonconforming the lower quality
specification limit (surface II) and the lower (surface III) and upper (surface I) confidence
bounds for the fraction nonconforming at a 95% confidence level versus the sample mean and
the sample standard deviation. The confidence bounds were calculated using the noncentral tdistribution. It was assumed a known true value of the measurand of the control material
equal to 100.00 measurement units. For the figures 1 and 3 it was assumed a total allowable
analytical error equal to 0.10 while for the figures 5 and 7 it was assumed a total allowable
14

analytical error equal to 0.20. The respective samples were samples of 20 control
measurements for the figures 1 and 5, and samples of 40 control measurements for the figures
3 and 7.

4.2. Fraction nonconforming the upper quality specification limit
Figures 2, 4, 6, and 8 present the expected fraction nonconforming the upper quality
specification limit (surface II) and the lower (surface III) and upper (surface I) confidence
bounds for the fraction nonconforming at a 95% confidence level versus the sample mean and
the sample standard deviation. The confidence bounds were calculated using the noncentral tdistribution. It was assumed a known true value of the measurand of the control material
equal to 100.00 measurement units. For the figures 2 and 4 it was assumed a total allowable
analytical error equal to 0.10 while for the figures 6 and 8 it was assumed a total allowable
analytical error equal to 0.20. The respective samples were samples of 20 control
measurements for the figures 2 and 6, and samples of 40 control measurements for the figures
4 and 8.
The results are summarized in the tables 2 and 3, assuming a total allowable analytical error
equal to 0.10, and in the tables 4 and 5, assuming a total allowable analytical error equal to
0.20. The respective samples were samples of 20 control measurements for the tables 2 and 4,
and samples of 40 control measurements for the tables 3 and 5.
The confidence bounds increase with the estimated systematic and random error of the
measurements and decrease with the sample size and the total allowable analytical error.
Although there have been assumed samples with a positive systematic error, it can be
easily shown that the bounds for the fraction nonconforming the upper quality specification
limit for a systematic error se are equal to the respective bounds for the fraction
nonconforming the lower quality specification limit for a systematic error –se.

15

Figure 1: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the lower quality specification
limit.

The expected fraction nonconforming the lower quality specification limit (surface II) and the
lower (surface III) and upper (surface I) confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming at
a 95% confidence level versus the sample mean and the sample standard deviation. It is
assumed a known true value of the measurand of the control material equal to 100.00
measurement units, a sample of 20 control measurements, and a total allowable analytical
error equal to 0.10.

16

Figure 2: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the upper quality specification
limit.

The expected fraction nonconforming the upper quality specification limit (surface II) and the
lower (surface III) and upper (surface I) confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming at
a 95% confidence level versus the sample mean and the sample standard deviation. It is
assumed a known true value of the measurand of the control material equal to 100.00
measurement units, a sample of 20 control measurements, and a total allowable analytical
error equal to 0.10.

17

Figure 3: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the lower quality specification
limit.

The expected fraction nonconforming the lower quality specification limit (surface II) and the
lower (surface III) and upper (surface I) confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming at
a 95% confidence level versus the sample mean and the sample standard deviation. It is
assumed a known true value of the measurand of the control material equal to 100.00
measurement units, a sample of 40 control measurements, and a total allowable analytical
error equal to 0.10.

18

Figure 4: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the upper quality specification
limit.

The expected fraction nonconforming the upper quality specification limit (surface II) and the
lower (surface III) and upper (surface I) confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming at
a 95% confidence level versus the sample mean and the sample standard deviation. It is
assumed a known true value of the measurand of the control material equal to 100.00
measurement units, a sample of 40 control measurements, and a total allowable analytical
error equal to 0.10.

19

Figure 5: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the lower quality specification
limit.

The expected fraction nonconforming the lower quality specification limit (surface II) and
the lower (surface III) and upper (surface I) confidence bounds for the fraction
nonconforming at a 95% confidence level versus the sample mean and the sample standard
deviation. It is assumed a known true value of the measurand of the control material equal to
100.00 measurement units, a sample of 20 control measurements, and a total allowable
analytical error equal to 0.20.

20

Figure 6: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the upper quality specification
limit.

The expected fraction nonconforming the upper quality specification limit (surface II) and the
lower (surface III) and upper (surface I) confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming at
a 95% confidence level versus the sample mean and the sample standard deviation. It is
assumed a known true value of the measurand of the control material equal to 100.00
measurement units, a sample of 20 control measurements, and a total allowable analytical
error equal to 0.20.

21

Figure 7: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the lower quality specification
limit.

The expected fraction nonconforming the lower quality specification limit (surface II) and the
lower (surface III) and upper (surface I) confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming at
a 95% confidence level versus the sample mean and the sample standard deviation. It is
assumed a known true value of the measurand of the control material equal to 100.00
measurement units, a sample of 40 control measurements, and a total allowable analytical
error equal to 0.20.

22

Figure 8: Confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming the upper quality specification
limit.

The expected fraction nonconforming the upper quality specification limit (surface II) and
the lower (surface III) and upper (surface I) confidence bounds for the fraction
nonconforming at a 95% confidence level versus the sample mean and the sample standard
deviation. It is assumed a known true value of the measurand of the control material equal to
100.00 measurement units, a sample of 40 control measurements, and a total allowable
analytical error equal to 0.20.

23

5. Discussion
In clinical laboratory medicine the fraction nonconforming besides being a quality
measure related to various process capability indices, it is used for the definition of the critical
errors during the QC design process. To estimate the fraction nonconforming the upper and
lower quality specification bounds for the measurement error are needed. These are defined
by the maximum total clinically allowable analytical error (Linnet 1989).
As both the systematic and the random error of any measurement procedure are actually
unknown, we can calculate the respective confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming
each of the upper and lower quality specification limits, using the noncentral t-distribution.
The calculation is mathematically complicated and computationally intensive.

It is not

possible to calculate the confidence bounds for the total fraction nonconforming either the
upper or the lower quality specification limits, without additional assumptions (Owen 1965).
The results of the study show that the difference of the confidence bounds for the fraction
nonconforming from the expected fraction nonconforming is considerable for greater random
and systematic errors and for smaller sample sizes, even when we assume an insignificant
uncertainty of the assigned value of the measurand of the control material. Consequently it is
considerable when the expected fraction nonconforming equals its acceptable upper bound
that is usually set equal to 0.10. Therefore, the uncertainty of the calculation of the critical
errors is considerable as well, as Gernand and Wojciechit have pointed out previously
(Gernand 2006). Accordingly, the uncertainty of the whole quality control design process is
significant, even assuming a negligible uncertainty of the assigned value of the measurand of
the control material.
Although it was assumed a reference control material with a measurand with an assigned
value of 100.00, the tables and figures of this study can be used for the estimation of the
24

confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming for any measurand with any assigned
value.

6. Conclusion
The confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming are useful quality measures, as the
expected fraction nonconforming is a key measure of the quality design process. The
confidence bounds for the fraction nonconforming each of the upper and lower quality
specification limits can be calculated using the noncentral t-distribution.

7. Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to Dr. Fritz Scholz for providing me with the technical report on the
applicatios of the noncentral t- distribution (Scholz 1994), that was the basis of this technical
report, as well as for his suggestions and corrections.

25

8. References
1987. Sampling distributions. In: Ito K, ed. The encyclopedic dictionary of mathematics. 2nd
ed. Boston, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1388-1396.
CLSI. 2012. Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement in Laboratory Medicine. Wayne,
Pennsylvania: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. p 1-57.
Gernand W. 2006. How Reliable Are Critical Error Calculations? Clinical Chemistry 52:895896.
Hatjimihail AT. 1992. A tool for the design and evaluation of alternative quality-control
procedures [published erratum appears in Clin Chem 1992 Nov;38(11):2360] [see
comments]. Clin Chem 38:204-210.
Juran JM, Godfrey AB, Hoogstoel RE, and Schilling EG. 1999. Juran's quality handbook:
McGraw Hill.
Linnet K. 1989. Choosing quality-control systems to detect maximum clinically allowable
analytical errors. Clin Chem 35:284-288.
Owen DB. 1965. A special case of a bivariate non-central t-distribution. Biometrika 52:437446.
Pearn W, and Kotz S. 2006. Encyclopedia and handbook of process capability indices: World
Scientific Publishing.
Qeuesenberry CP. 2006. Probability integral transformations. In: Kotz S, Balakrishnan N,
Read C, and Vidakovic B, eds. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. 2nd ed. Hoboken,
New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 6476-6481.
Scholz FW. 1994. Applications of the Noncentral t-Distribution. Mathematics and
Engineering Analysis Library Boeing Computer Services. p 1-22.

26

