Chapter 1: Statistical Variation and the Normal Curve

1.0 Introduction

Perhaps the most striking feature of real data from almost any discipline is the
variation they exhibit. If a nurse measures physical dimensions (heights, weights..)
or blood parameters (Serum albumin or cholesterol..) for a sample of patients, they
will (nearly) all be different. If a teacher or psychologist administers a psychological
test to a sample of children, the tests scores will vary greatly. If a manufacturing
engineer measures physical dimensions (e.g., outer diameter or length) of
components manufactured to the same specifications, they will not all be the same –
in fact, they will exhibit precisely the same type of variation as the psychological test
scores. Similarly, environmental scientists will find different acidity levels (pH
values) in samples from different lakes or streams, or from one site sampled at
different times. They will find that birds differ in their dimensions in much the same
way that humans do and if they measure birds’ eggs, they will find very much the
same kind of variation as did the engineer, teacher or nurse referred to above.

This variation is the reason why statistical methods and ideas are required across a
wide range of disciplines. Statistics is the science of describing and analysing
chance variation, and statistical methods help us distinguish between systematic
effects and chance variation.

In this chapter, we will be concerned with describing such variation – at first with
pictures in Section 1.1. We will then focus, in Section 1.2, on the Normal curve that
can be adapted to describe the variation encountered in many practical situations,
and which is fundamental to the simple statistical methods that form the basis of
much of this course. We will discuss, in Section 1.3, how to decide if these curves fit
our data. Section 1.4 considers the implications of combining chance quantities (for
example, the implications for the overall length of a project of combining several
consecutive activities, each subject to chance variation). In practice, we are very
often concerned with the behaviour of averages; thus, a medical study might be
carried out to decide if the use of a new drug reduces, on average, the blood
pressure of patients suffering from high blood pressure. In Section 1.5, we will
examine how the behaviour of averages differs from that of ‘raw’ scores – this
carries implications for answering questions such as that related to blood pressure
changes, referred to above. In Section 1.6 we will consider some aspects of
measurement systems – if the same object is measured many times (even by the
same person using the same equipment) the same result is not found. Due to
chance measurement error, a range of values will be obtained, and these values
often exhibit characteristics very similar to those of the industrial or psychological
data discussed above. Finally, Section 1.7 illustrates some applications of a simple
statistical tool (the control chart) which is related to the material introduced in the
earlier sections of the chapter.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 1

1.1 Statistical Variation

We begin with a series of examples to illustrate statistical variation in a number of

disciplines. Figure 1.1.1 is based on a dataset (Grades) that comes with the Minitab
software [1] that will be used extensively in this course manual. Investigators in a
northeastern university in the USA collected data to investigate the relationship
between SAT scores (Scholastic Aptitude Test, often used as a college admission or
course placement criterion) and GPA grades (grade point average – university
performance score). Figure 1.1.1 gives the Verbal SAT scores of 200 students.
This picture is typical of what we might expect from psychological/educational test
results – the students cluster around the central value (about 600, here) and the
numbers of students who get scores far from the centre is quite small – the numbers
decrease in a more or less symmetrical manner in each direction.

300 400 500 600 700 800

Figure 1.1.1: SAT Verbal scores for 200 university students

Figure 1.1.2 represents capping torques (in lbs-inches) of 78 container caps; the
capping torque is a measure of the energy expended in breaking the seal of the
screw-capped containers. The data come from a process capability study of a newly
installed filling line in a company that manufactures chemical reagents. It is
interesting to note that the physical measurements display similar characteristics to
the psychological scores – they vary in a roughly symmetrical way around a central
value (about 10.8 for the torques).

Figure 1.1.3 represents petal lengths of a sample 50 irises from the variety Setosa.
The data were originally published in the Bulletin of the American Iris Society [2], but
their frequent citation in the statistical literature is due to their use in the pioneering
paper on multivariate analysis by R.A. Fisher [3]. This botanical/environmental
science example exhibits the same symmetry characteristics noted above for the
psychological and industrial data.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 2

 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5

Figure 1.1.2: Capping torques (lb-in) for 78 screw-capped containers

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Figure 1.1.3: Petal lengths (mm) for 50 irises (Setosa)

144 152 160 168 176 184

Figure 1.1.4: Heights (cm) of 1794 pregnant women

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 3

In Figure 1.1.4 we return to humans, but this time the values represent physical
measurements rather than psychological scores: they are heights (cm) of pregnant
women. The data were downloaded from the website of Prof. Martin Bland (a well-
known medical statistician, see for example his book [4]). Because the sample size
is so large (1794 values) the histogram is much smoother and the symmetry is much
better defined, than for the smaller sample sizes of the first three examples. In
Section 1.3 we will see that all four datasets are consistent with underlying Normal
or Gaussian distributions - smooth symmetrical bell-shaped curves (see Figure
1.1.6) that will be discussed in some detail in Section 1.2. Consequently, any
departures from symmetry in our histograms are considered due to the variability
necessarily associated with relatively small sample sizes. Note though, that both the
women’s heights and petal lengths data have many repeated values, due to
imprecise measurement systems. This would not be expected in truly Normal data,
but is unlikely to matter for practical purposes.

While this symmetrical shape is very common, it is by no means universal, as

illustrated by our next example. Figure 1.1.5. represents urinary -
hydroxycorticosteroid (-OHCS) values in nmol/24h “obtained on a random sample
of 100 obese adult females drawn from a fully specified target population”; the data
come from the book on laboratory medicine by Strike [5]. The steroid data are
strongly skewed (to the right); the characteristic described by the graph is very
different from those of our first four examples. Most of the steroid measurements
are less than 900 but individual values range up to around 1400. While it is now
possible to deal directly with skewed data, traditionally, analysts sought
transformations which would allow the data to be analysed using methods based on
the Normal distribution; this is still a common practice. Figure 1.1.6 shows a
histogram (with a superimposed Normal curve) of the transformed data after the
original measurements were subjected to transformation by taking logarithms (to
base 10). As we shall see again in Section 1.3 the transformation has been
successful – the transformed data are well modelled by a Normal curve. Where
transformed data follow a Normal curve, the original skewed distribution is said to be
‘log-Normal’.

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Figure 1.1.5: Urinary -hydroxycorticosteroid (nmol/24h) values for 100 obese females

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 4

 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2

Figure 1.1.6: Transformed (logarithms) steroid data

There are of course very many different types of shape that may be encountered for
histograms of real data (more will be presented during the lectures). However,
Figures 1.1.1-1.1.6 were selected for presentation, both to illustrate the wide
applicability of the Normal curve (in terms of discipline type) and the possibility of
transforming data so that they follow this curve, which is, perhaps, the easiest of all
statistical distributions to use – hence its popularity. It is also of fundamental
importance because averages of data sampled from skewed distributions will, in
many cases, follow a Normal curve (see Section 1.5) – this means that methods
developed for Normal data can be applied to such averages, even though the
underlying data are skewed.

1.2 The Normal curve

If the more or less symmetrical histograms of Sections 1.1 were based on several
thousand observations, the bars of the histograms could be made very narrow and
the overall shapes might then be expected to approximate the smooth curve shown
below as Figure 1.2.1.

Figure 1.2.1: The Normal curve

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 5

This curve is symmetrical about the centre, the mean, usually denoted  - the Greek
letter corresponding to m, and its width is measured by the standard deviation,
denoted  - the Greek letter corresponding to s. The standard deviation is formally
defined but can usefully be thought of as one sixth of the width of the curve, for most
practical purposes. In principle, the curve stretches from minus infinity to plus infinity
but in practice (as can be seen from Figure 1.2.1) the area in the tails becomes
infinitesimally small very quickly.

Interpreting the Normal Curve

Figure 1.2.2 shows three Normal curves with mean  and standard deviation . The
curves are drawn in such a way that the total area enclosed by each curve is one.
Approximately 68% of the area lies within 1 standard deviation of the mean; the
corresponding values for two and three standard deviations are 95% and 99.7%,
respectively. These areas will be the same for all Normal curves irrespective of the
values of the means and standard deviations.

Figure 1.2.2: Areas within one, two and three standard deviations of the mean

The implications of this figure are that if the variation between measurements on
individuals/objects (e.g. blood pressure, SAT scores, torques, etc.) can be described
by a Normal curve, then 68% of all values will lie within one standard deviation of the
mean, 95% within two, and 99.7% within three standard deviations of the mean.
Similarly, if we have a measurement error distribution that follows a Normal curve,
then in 32% of cases the chance error will result in a measured value being more
than one standard deviation above or below the mean (the ‘true value’ if the
measurement system is unbiased). In only 5% of cases will the observation be
further than two standard deviations from the mean.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 6

 Figure 1.2.3: Distribution of the masses of filled containers

Suppose that the Normal curve shown in Figure 1.2.3 represents the masses of filled
containers sampled from a filling line. The curve is interpreted as an idealised
histogram for which the total area is 1.0. The area between any two points (say x 1
and x2) represents the relative frequency of container masses between x1 and x2. If
this area is 0.2 it means that 20% of all containers filled by this line have masses
between x1 and x2 units. The assumption is that, provided the filling process
remains stable, 20% of all future fillings will result in containers with masses
between x1 and x2 units. Since relative frequencies are generally of interest, e.g.
what fraction of values is less than or greater than a given value, or what fraction lies
between two given values, then, where a Normal curve describes the variability in
question, it can be used to calculate the required relative frequency.

The use of probability as a way of expressing uncertainty has become common in

everyday speech. Our concept of probability is intimately bound up with the idea of
relative frequency and people move easily between the two ways of describing
variability. Thus, without any formal definition of probability, it seems quite natural to
say that if a filled container is selected at random, the probability is 0.2 that its mass
will lie between x1 and x2. Both of these ways of describing variability, viz., relative
frequency and probability, are equivalent, and they will be used interchangeably
hereafter.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 7

Obtaining Areas under Normal Curves

Figure 1.2.4: A standard Normal curve (z) and an arbitrary Normal curve (x)

All Normal curves have essentially the same shape once allowance is made for
different standard deviations. This allows for easy calculation of areas, i.e., relative
frequencies or probabilities. If, for any arbitrary curve with mean µ and standard
deviation , the area between two values, say x1 and x2, is required, all that is
necessary is to find the corresponding values z1 and z2 on the standard Normal
curve, determine the area between z1 and z2 and this will also be the area between
x1 and x2 (as shown (schematically) in Figure 1.2.4). A standard Normal curve has
mean zero and standard deviation one.

The relationship between the x and z values is simple:

x
z


The z value is the answer to the question “by how many standard deviations does x
differ from the mean ?”

Once the z value is calculated, the area to its left (i.e. the area from minus infinity up
to this value of z) can be read from a standard Normal table (Table ST-1). Thus, a z
value of 2 has an area to its left of 0.9772, while a z value of 1.5 has an area to its
left of 0.9332. Therefore, the area between z=1.5 and z=2 on the standard Normal
curve is 0.9772 - 0.9332 or 0.0440. Similarly, the area between two points which are
1.5 and 2 standard deviations from the mean of any Normal curve will also be
0.0440.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 8

Example 1

Figure 1.1.4 showed a distribution of heights for a population of women. The mean
of the 1794 values was 162.4 and the standard deviation was 6.284. If we take the
mean and standard deviation as those of the corresponding population, we can
address questions such as those below.

(i) What fraction of the population has a height greater than 170 cm?

(ii) What fraction of the population has a height less than 145 cm?

(iii) What bounds should we use if we want to enclose the central 95% of
the population within them?

(i) What fraction of the population has a height greater than 170 cm?

To calculate the required proportion of the population, the area to the right of 170 on
the height curve must be found. To do this, the equivalent value on the standard
Normal curve is calculated; the area to the right of this can be found easily and this
gives the required proportion, as shown in Figure 1.2.5.

Figure 1.2.5: The standard Normal curve (z) and the women’s heights curve (x)

The translation from the height (x) to the standard Normal scale (z) is given by:

x
z


z = 170 162.4 = 1.21

6.284

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 9

Thus, a height of 170 corresponds to the point 1.21 on the standard Normal curve.
The area to the left of 1.21 under the standard Normal curve is 0.8869, so the area
to the right is 0.1131, since the total area is 1. Similarly, the area to the right of 170
is also 0.1131. Approximately 11% of the women will have a height greater than 170
cm.

We can write out our calculations as follows:

170 162.4
P(x >170) = P( Z  ) = P(z > 1.21) = 1 – P(z < 1.21)
6.284

= 1 – 0.8869 = 0.1131

We can read P(x >170) as “the proportion of x values greater than 170” or,
equivalently, as “the probability that a single x value, selected at random, will be
greater than 170”.

(ii) What fraction of the population has a height less than 145 cm?

The value of Z that corresponds to 145 is given by:

x
z


z = 145 162.4 = –2.77

6.284

Statistical Table-1 (ST-1) only gives areas for positive values of Z. However, we can
use the symmetry of the curve to find areas corresponding to negative values. Thus,
P(z<2.77) is the area below 2.77; 1–P(z<2.77) is the area above +2.77. By
symmetry this is also the area below –2.77, as shown in Figure 1.2.6

-2.77 0 2.77

Figure 1.2.6: The symmetry property of the Normal curve (area is 0.0028 in each tail)

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 10

Accordingly, we have:

P(z < –2.77) = 1 – P(z < 2.77) = 1 – 0.9972 = 0.0028 = P(X < 145).

Approximately 0.3% will have heights less than 145 cm.

(iii) What bounds (A, B) should we use if we want to enclose the central 95%
of the population within them?

Figure 1.2.7: Finding the central 95% limits

To find the values that enclose the central 95% of the standard Normal curve (i.e.,
an area of 0.95) we proceed as follows. Enclosing the central 0.95 means we leave
0.025 in each tail. The upper bound, therefore, has an area of 0.975 below it (as
shown in the leftmost curve in Figure 1.2.7). If we inspect the body of Table ST-1,
we find that 0.975 corresponds to a z value of 1.96. By symmetry, the lower bound
is –1.96 (the central curve in Figure 1.2.7). Thus, a standard Normal curve has 95
% of its area between z=–1.96 and z=+1.96. From the relation:

x
z

We get:
B
1.96  => B =  +1.96

and:
A 
– 1.96  => A =  –1.96


It is clear, then, that the values that enclose the central 95% of the population for an
arbitrary Normal curve (x) with mean  and standard deviation  are: –1.96 and
+1.96.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 11

In the present case this gives us: 162.4±1.96(6.284), i.e., 162.4±12.3. While this
gives (150.1, 174.7), for practical purposes the bounds would probably be described
as 150 to 175 cm.

Example 2

Suppose the distribution of capping torques for a certain product container is Normal
with mean =10.6 lb-in and standard deviation =1.4 lb-in (these were the values
obtained from the data on which Figure 1.1.2 is based). To protect against leaks, a
minimum value for the torque must be achieved in the manufacturing process. If the
lower specification limit on torque is set at 7 lb-in, what percentage of capping
torques will be outside the lower specification limit?

To calculate the required percentage, the area to the left of 7 on the capping process
curve must be found. To do this, the equivalent value on the standard Normal curve
is calculated; the area to the left of this can be found easily and this gives the
required proportion (as illustrated schematically in Figure 1.2.8).

Figure 1.2.8: The standard Normal curve and the capping process curve

The translation from the torque scale (x) to the standard Normal scale (z) is given
by:

x
z


z = 7  10.6 = – 2.57
1.4

Thus, a torque of 7 on the capping process curve corresponds to the point – 2.57 on
the standard Normal curve. The area to the left of 2.57 under the standard Normal

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 12

curve is 0.995 (or 0.99491 if your prefer!), so the area to the right is 0.005, since the
total area is 1. By symmetry, the area to the left of –2.57 is also 0.005 and,
therefore, five caps per thousand will be expected to be below the capping torque
lower specification limit in future production, provided the process remains stable. A
simple statistical tool (a ‘control chart’) may be used to monitor the stability of
manufacturing processes. Section 1.7 provides an introduction to and gives several
examples of such charts.

Exercises

1.2.1. Weight uniformity regulations usually refer to weights of tablets lying within a certain range
of the label claim. Suppose the weights of individual tablets are Normally distributed with
mean 100 mg (label claim) and standard deviation 7 mg.

(a) If a tablet is selected at random, what is the probability that its weight is:
(i) less than 85 mg ?
(ii) more than 115 mg ?
(iii) either less than 85 mg or more than 115 mg ?

(b) (i) What percentage of tablets lie between 90 mg and 110 mg ?

(ii) What percentage are heavier than 105 mg ?
(iii) What percentage are lighter than 98 mg ?

(c) (i) What weight value K could be quoted such that 99% of all tablets are heavier than K ?
(ii) What weight values A and B can be quoted such that 99% of all tablets lie between A
and B ?

1.2.2 Figures 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 are based on data cited by Strike [5]. The data are urinary -
hydroxycorticosteroid (-OHCS) values in nmol/24h, obtained on a random sample of 100
obese adult females drawn from a fully specified target population. According to Strike it is
of interest to define a 95% reference range for the -OHCS measurements (a reference
interval encloses the central 95% of the population of measured values) that can be used to
assess the clinical status of future subjects drawn from the same population. The
distribution of -OHCS values is quite skewed; accordingly, in order to construct the
reference interval we first transform the data to see if they can be modelled by a Normal
distribution in a transformed scale. Figure 1.1.6 suggests that this is a reasonable
assumption (this will be discussed further in Section 1.3). In the log10 scale the mean is
2.7423 and the standard deviation is 0.1604.

(i) Calculate the bounds (a, b) for the 95% reference interval in the log scale.
(ii) Use your results to obtain the corresponding reference interval in the original
a b
measurement scale: the bounds will be (10 , 10 ).
(iii) What value, U, should be quoted such that only 1% of women from this population
would be expected to have a -OHCS measurement which exceeds U?

1
Try re-calculating using standard deviations of 1.38 or 1.41 instead of 1.40 and note the effect on
the resulting probabilities. How often (never?) do engineers know standard deviations to this level of
precision?

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 13

Calculating the standard deviation

Our calculations using the Normal curve assumed the mean and standard deviation
were already known. In practice, of course, they have to be calculated from
observations on the system under study. Suppose that a sample of n objects has
been selected and measured (e.g., SAT scores, people’s heights etc.) and the
results are x1, x2, …xn.. The average of these, x , gives an estimate of the
corresponding population value, . The standard deviation, s, of the set of results
gives an estimate of the corresponding population standard deviation, . This is
calculated as:

 (x i  x)2
s i 1

n 1

i.e. the mean is subtracted from each value, the deviation is squared and these
squared deviations are summed. To get the average squared deviation, the sum is
divided by n–1, which is called the 'degrees of freedom'2. The square root of the
average squared deviation is the standard deviation. Note that it has the same units
as the original measurements.

It is important always to distinguish between system parameters, such as the

population standard deviation, , and estimates of these parameters, calculated
from the sample data. These latter quantities are called ‘sample statistics’ (any
number calculated from the data is a ‘statistic’) and are themselves subject to
chance variation. System parameters, such as  and , are considered fixed,
though unknown, quantities. In practice, if the sample size n is very large, the result
calculated using the definition given above will often be labelled , since a very large
set of measurements will give the 'true' standard deviation. If the sample size is
small, the result is labelled s (or sometimes ˆ ); this makes clear to the user that the
calculated value is itself subject to measurement/sampling error, i.e. if the study
were repeated a different value would be found for the sample standard deviation.

The assumption that the parameters of the Normal distributions are known without
error is reasonable for the height data of Example 1 (where n=1794), but clearly the
sample size for the capping torque data (n=78) is such that we cannot expect that
the ‘true’ process mean or standard deviation is exactly equal to the sample value.
Methods have been developed (tolerance intervals) to allow for the uncertainty
involved in having only sample data when carrying out calculations like those of

2
(n–1) is used instead of the sample size n for a mathematical reason; the deviations (before they are
squared) sum to zero, so once the sum of (n–1) is found, the last deviation is determined by the
constraint, thus, only (n–1) deviations are free to vary at random – hence, ‘degrees of freedom’.
Obviously, unless n is quite small, effectively the same answer is obtained if we get the average by
dividing by n.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 14

Examples 1 and 2, though these are rarely discussed in elementary textbooks.
Hahn and Meeker [6] discuss such intervals in an engineering context.

1.3 Assessing Normality

The statistical methods that will be discussed in later chapters assume that the data
come from a Normal distribution. This assumption can be investigated using a
simple graphical technique, which is based on the type of calculation discussed in
the previous section. Here, for simplicity, the logic of the method will be illustrated
using a sample of 10 values, but such a sample size would be much too small in
practice, as it would contain little information on the underlying shape, particularly on
the shapes of the tails of the curve.

The relation between any arbitrary Normal value x and the corresponding standard
Normal value z is given by:

x
z


which can be re-written as:

x =  + z

If x is plotted on the vertical axis and z on the horizontal axis, this is the equation of a
straight line with intercept  and slope , as shown in Figure 1.3.1. Accordingly, if
we make a correspondence between the x values in which we are interested and z
values from the standard Normal table and obtain a straight line, at least
approximately, when they are plotted against each other, we have evidence to
support the Normality assumption.

0 Z

Figure 1.3.1: The theoretical relationship between x and z when x is Normal

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 15

 Ranks Fraction  x i 3/8
x i i/n z n  1 / 4 N-scores

12.6 9 0.9 1.282 0.841 1.000

13.1 10 1.0  0.939 1.547
9.8 2 0.2 -0.842 0.159 -1.000
11.7 7 0.7 0.524 0.646 0.375
10.6 4 0.4 -0.253 0.354 -0.375
11.2 6 0.6 0.253 0.549 0.123
12.2 8 0.8 0.842 0.744 0.655
11.1 5 0.5 0.000 0.451 -0.123
8.7 1 0.1 -1.282 0.061 -1.547
10.5 3 0.3 -0.524 0.256 -0.655

Table 1.3.1 Sample data for calculating Normal Scores

The correspondence is established by finding the fraction of the x values equal to or

less than each value in the dataset, and then finding the z value that has the same
fraction of the standard Normal curve below it. In Table 1.3.1, the ten x values are
listed in column 1, their ranks, i, (smallest 1 to largest n=10) in column 2, the fraction
equal to or less than x in column 3 (i/n). Column 4 gives the z value with the area
given by column 3 below it; for example, in the first row, 90% of the sample values
are equal to or less than x=12.6 and column 4 indicates that 90% of the area under a
standard Normal curve is below 1.282 (Table ST-1 gives z values to two decimal
places, but software such as Minitab or Excel will give more, if required).

Using this method for establishing the correspondence between x and z will always
result in the largest x value corresponding to z=  (which presents a challenge when
plotting!). To avoid the infinity, some small perturbation of the calculation of the
fraction i/n is required, such that the result is never i/n=1. Simple examples of
possible perturbations would be (i–0.5)/n or i/(n+0.5). Minitab has several options;
(i–3/8)/(n+1/4), which is based on theoretical considerations, is used in Table 1.3.1.
The areas which result from this are shown in column 5 and the corresponding z
values (Normal scores) in column 6. The choice of perturbation is not important: all
that is required is to draw a graph to determine if the values form an approximately
straight line. We do not expect a perfectly straight line even for truly Normal data,
due to the effect of sampling variability. Thus, 12.6 is the ninth largest value in our
dataset, but any value between 13.1 and 12.2 would also have been the ninth
largest value. Consequently, 12.6 is not uniquely related to 0.841.

Figure 1.3.2 shows the Normal plot (or Normal probability plot, as it is also called) for
our dataset – a ‘least squares’ line is superimposed to guide the eye (we will discuss
such lines later). The data are close to the line (hardly surprising for an illustrative
example!).

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 16

 15 Mean 11.15
StDev 1.328
N 10
14 AD 0.131
P-Value 0.971

13

12

X
11

10

8
-2 -1 0 1 2
Score

Figure 1.3.2: Normal plot for the sample data

Departures from Normality

The schematic diagrams in Figure 1.3.3 indicate some patterns which may be
expected when the underlying distribution does not conform to the Normal curve.
Plots similar to Figure 1.3.3(a) will be encountered commonly, as outliers are often
seen in real datasets. Figure 1.3.3(c) might, for example, arise where the data
represent blood measurements on patients - many blood parameters have skewed
distributions. Figures 1.3.3(b) and (d) are less common but (b) may be seen where
the data are generated by two similar but different sources, e.g. if historical product
yields were being studied and raw materials from two different suppliers had been
used in production. The term ‘heavy tails’ refers to distributions which have more
area in the tails than does the Normal distribution (the t-distribution is an example).
Heavy tails mean that data values are observed further from the mean, in each
direction, more frequently than would be expected from a Normal distribution.

Single outlier Mixture Skewness Heavy tails

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 1.3.3: Idealised patterns of departure from a straight line

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 17

Real Data

In Section 1.1 we examined histograms for a number of datasets; here, we draw

Normal plots for several of those examples. Figure 1.3.4 is the Normal plot for the
SAT scores of Figure 1.1.1, while Figure 1.3.5 is the Normal plot for the capping
torques of Figure 1.1.2. In both cases the lines formed by the plotted points are
essentially straight. The plots also contain statistical significance tests (the
Anderson-Darling test, hence AD) which test for Normality. We will discuss
statistical tests in the next chapter. Here, we use a rule of thumb which says that a
p-value (p-values vary between 0 and 1) greater than 0.05 supports Normality, while
one less than 0.05 rejects it. For both Normal plots the p-values are large and there
is no reason to question the assumption of Normality.
Mean 595.6
800 StDev 73.21
N 200
AD 0.259
P-Value 0.712
700

600
Verbal

500

400

300
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Score

Figure 1.3.4: Normal plot for SAT Verbal scores for 200 university students

Mean 10.84
15
StDev 1.351
N 78
14 AD 0.206
P-Value 0.865
13

12
Torque

11

10

6
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Score

Figure 1.3.5: Normal plot for Capping torques for 78 screw-capped containers

Figure 1.3.6 refers to the Urinary -OHCS measurements, which we first

encountered in Figure 1.1.5. The graph is far from straight and the AD p-value is
very much less than 0.05; the graph displays the characteristic curvature of a right-

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 18

skewed distribution. Figure 1.3.7 is the Normal plot of the log-transformed data and
it is quite consistent with an underlying Normal distribution.
1600 Mean 590.8
StDev 224.0
1400 N 100
AD 1.729
P-Value <0.005
1200

1000

b-OHCS
800

600

400

200

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Score

Figure 1.3.6: Normal plot for Urinary -OHCS 100 obese females

Mean 2.742
3.2 StDev 0.1604
N 100
AD 0.250
P-Value 0.738
3.0
Log10(b-OHCS)

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Score

Figure 1.3.7: Normal plot for log-transformed -OHCS measurements

Figure 1.3.8 is a Normal plot of the women’s heights measurements of Figure 1.1.4.
Although it is very close to a straight line, it has a curiously clumped, almost stair-
like, appearance. The p-value is very small indeed. The reason for this is that the
measurements are rounded to integer values (centimetres) and, because the
dataset is so large, there are many repeated values. A Normal distribution is
continuous (the sampled values can have many decimal places) and few, if any,
repeated values would be expected to occur; the AD test detects this unusual
occurrence. To illustrate the effect of rounding on the plots, 1794 random numbers
were generated from a Normal distribution with the same mean and standard
deviation as the real data (the mean and SD of the sample generated are slightly
different from those specified, due to sampling variability).

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 19

 190 Mean 162.4
StDev 6.284
N 1794
AD 2.985
180 P-Value <0.005

170

Heights (cm)
160

150

140

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Score

Figure 1.3.8: Normal plot for women’s heights measurements

190 Mean 162.2

StDev 6.409
N 1794
AD 0.417
180 P-Value 0.330

170
Simulate-1

160

150

140

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Score

Figure 1.3.9: Normal plot for simulated women’s heights measurements

Figure 1.3.9 shows a Normal plot for the data generated; as expected from random
numbers, the sample values give a very good Normal plot. The data were then
rounded to whole numbers (centimetres) and Figure 1.3.10 was drawn – its
characteristics are virtually identical to those of the real data, showing that the cause
of the odd line is the rounding; note the change in the p-value in moving from Figure
1.3.9 to Figure 1.3.10. Figure 1.3.11 shows a Normal plot for the Iris data of Figure
1.1.3 – the effect of the measurements being rounded to only one decimal place,
resulting in multiple petals having the same length, is quite striking.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 20

 190 Mean 162.2
StDev 6.413
N 1794
AD 2.133
180 P-Value <0.005

Round(Simlate-1)
170

160

150

140

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Score

Figure 1.3.10: Normal plot for rounded simulated women’s heights measurements

Mean 1.464
1.9
StDev 0.1735
N 50
1.8 AD 1.011
P-Value 0.011
1.7

1.6
Petal Length

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

-2 -1 0 1 2
Score

Figure 1.3.11: Normal plot for Iris petal lengths

The assumption of data Normality underlies the most commonly used statistical
significance tests and the corresponding confidence intervals. We will use Normal
plots extensively in verifying this assumption in later chapters.

1.4 Combining Random Quantities

Often the quantities in which we are interested are themselves the result of
combining other quantities that are subject to chance variation. For example, a
journey is composed of two parts: X is the time it takes to travel from A to B, and Y
is the time to travel from B to C. We are interested in S, the sum of the two travel
times.

If we can assume that X is distributed with mean X=100 and standard deviation
x=10 (units are minutes), while Y is distributed with mean Y=60 and standard
deviation Y=5, what can we say about the total travel time, S=X+Y?

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 21

If we can assume that X and Y are independent (i.e., if X happens, for example, to
be unusually long, this fact carries no implications for Y being either unusually long
or short), then the following rules hold.

Addition Rules

S = X + Y

S = X + Y

The underlying mathematics shows that both the means and the variances (the
squares of the standard deviations) are additive. This means that the standard
deviation of the overall travel time, S, is:

 S   X2   Y2

We might also ask, how much longer than the trip from B to C, the trip from A to B is
likely to take (i.e., what can we say about D=X–Y). To answer such questions we
need subtraction rules.

Subtraction Rules

If D = X – Y, then:
D = X – Y

D = X + Y

Note that the variances add, even though we are subtracting. This gives:

 D   X2   Y2

The independence assumption is required for the rules related to the standard
deviation; it is not required for combining means.

Normality Assumptions

The rules given above hold irrespective of the distributions that describe the chance
variation for the two journeys, X and Y. However, if we can assume that X and Y are
Normally distributed, then any linear combination of X and Y (sums or differences,
possibly multiplied by constants) will also be Normally distributed. In such cases,
the calculations required to answer our questions are simple; they are essentially the
same as for Examples 1 and 2, once we have combined the component parts into
the overall measured quantity, and then found its mean and standard deviation using
the above rules.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 22

Example 3

Given our assumptions above about the means and standard deviations of the two
journey times, X and Y, what is the probability that the overall journey time, S,

(i) will take more than three hours (S > 180 minutes)?
(ii) will take less than 2.5 hours (S < 150 minutes)?

(i) From our addition rules we obtain:

S = X + Y = 100 + 60 = 160

S = X + Y = 102 + 52 = 125

 S   X2   Y2  10 2  5 2  125  11.18

Overall travel times are, therefore, Normally distributed with a mean of 160 and
a standard deviation of 11.18, as shown schematically in Figure 1.4.1.

Figure 1.4.1: The standard Normal curve and the travel times curve

The probability that S is more than 180 minutes is given by:

180   S 180 160

P(S  3hours)  P(S  180)  P(Z  )  P(Z  )  P(Z  1.79)
S 11.18
 1  P(Z  1.79)  1  0.9633  0.0367

The probability that the overall travel time, S, exceeds three hours (180
minutes) is approximately 0.04, as illustrated schematically in Figure 1.4.1.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 23

 (ii)

Figure 1.4.2: The standard Normal curve and the travel times curve

150   S 150  160

P( S  150)  P( Z  )  P( Z  )  P( Z  0.89)  P( Z  0.89)  1  P( Z  0.89)  0.19
S 11.18

The probability that the overall journey, S, will take less than 2.5 hours (150
minutes) is 0.19, as illustrated schematically in Figure 1.4.2.

Example 4

Suppose that X (as given in the introduction, i.e. mean X=100 and standard
deviation x=10 (units are minutes)) is the time it takes a part-time student to travel
to college each evening and she makes ten such trips in a term.

(i) If T is the total travel time to college for the term, what are the mean and
standard deviation for T?

(ii) What is the probability T exceeds 18 hours (1080 minutes)?

Since only one trip type is involved, we do not need the X sub-script. We have:

X= = 100

X

The total travel time is:

10
T   Xi
i 1

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 24

 where Xi is the journey time for trip i and i = 1, 2, 3…10. All trips have the same
characteristics, so i=100 and i=10.

(i) T = 1 + 2 + 3…10 = 10(100) = 1000

T = 1 + 2 + 3…10 = 10(102) = 1000

T = 31.62

Total travel time is Normally distributed with a mean of 1000 and a standard
deviation of 31.62, where the units are minutes.

(ii)

Figure 1.4.3: The standard Normal curve and the total travel time curve

1080  1000
P(T  1080)  P(Z  )  P(Z  2.53)
31.62
 1  P(Z  2.53)  1  0.9943  0.0057

The chances that her total travel time to college for the term might exceed 18
hours (1080 minutes) is only about 6 in a thousand, as illustrated schematically
in Figure 1.4.3. Note that the travel characteristics for travelling back from
college could be quite different (different times might mean different traffic
levels), so this would need examination if we were interested in her total
amount of college travel.

Exercises

1.4.1. A final year psychology student approaches a member of staff seeking information on doing a
PhD. In particular, she is concerned at how long it will take. The staff member suggests that
there are essentially four sequential activities involved: Literature Review (reading and
understanding enough of the literature in a particular area to be able to say where there are
gaps that might be investigated), Problem Formulation (stating precisely what will be
investigated, how this will be done, what measurement instruments will be required, what
kinds of conclusions might be expected), Data Collection (developing the necessary
research tools, acquiring subjects, carrying out the data collection, carrying out the statistical
analysis), and Writing up the results (drawing conclusions, relating them to the prior

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 25

 literature and producing the final thesis). She points out that the required times are variable,
but that her experience suggests that they can be modelled by independent Normal
distributions with the parameters shown in Table 1.4.1, where the time units are weeks.

Activity Mean Standard

Deviation

Literature review (L) 30 8

Problem formulation (P) 10 3
Data collection (D) 120 12
Write up (W) 16 3

Table 1.4.1: Estimates for the means and SDs of the four activities (weeks)

Assuming that this is a reasonably accurate description of the situation (in practice, of course,
the activities will overlap), what is the probability that the doctorate will take (i) less than 3 years
(156 weeks)?; (ii) more than 3.5 years (182 weeks)?; (iii) more than 4 years (208 weeks)?

1.5 The effects of averaging

It is rarely the case that decisions are based on single measured values – usually,
several values are averaged and the average forms the basis of decision making.
We need, therefore, to consider the effect of averaging on our data. We will discuss
this in the context of measuring the percentage dissolution of tablets after 24 hours
in a dissolution apparatus. The ideas are general though; precisely the same
statements could be made about examination results, prices of second-hand cars or
the pH measurements made on samples of lake water.

Figure 1.5.1 illustrates the averaging effect. Figure 1.5.1(a) is an idealised

histogram of individual tablet measurements; it represents what we might expect to
get by drawing a histogram for many thousands of measurements of the percentage
dissolution of individual tablets. Because of the large number of observations, the
bars of the histogram could be made very narrow and a smooth curve would be
expected to fit the histogram very closely. In practice, of course, we would rarely
have such a large quantity of data available to us, but that does not prevent us from
visualising what would happen under idealised conditions.

The data on which Figure 1.5.1(b) is based are no longer single tablet dissolution
values. Suppose we randomly group the many thousands of tablet measurements
into sets of four, calculate the means for each set, and draw a histogram of the
means. Four values selected at random from the distribution described by (a) will,
when averaged, tend to give a mean result close to the centre of the distribution. In
order for the mean to be very large (say greater than 92) all four of the randomly
selected tablet measurements would have to be very large, an unlikely occurrence3.
Figure 1.5.1(b) represents an idealised version of this second histogram. Of course
we would never undertake such an exercise in the laboratory, though we might in
3
If the probability that one tablet was greater than 92 was 0.05, the probability that all four would be
greater than 92 would be 0.00000625!

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 26

the classroom. The implications of the exercise are, however, very important.
Figure 1.5.1 shows that the properties of means are very different from those of
single measurements in one key aspect: they are much less variable. This
difference is important, since virtually all data-driven decision making relies on
means rather than on single measurements. The narrower curve is called ‘the
sampling distribution of the mean’, as it describes the variation of means, based on
repeated sampling, and its standard deviation is called ‘the standard error of the
mean’ or ‘standard error’ for short.

(b)

(a)

86.5 87.5 88.5 89.5 90.5 91.5 92.5 93.5

Figure 1.5.1 Idealised histograms of the distributions of percentage dissolution of individual

tablets (a) and of the averages of 4 tablets (b).

Mathematical theory shows that, if the standard deviation of the distribution of

individual values is 
means is n, where n is the number of independent values on which each mean is
based. Suppose the individual values vary about a long-run average value of 90
with a standard deviation of 0.5. It follows that averages of 4 values will also vary
about a long-run mean of 90, but their standard error will be 0.25. Recall that
approximately 95% of the area under any Normal curve lies within two standard
deviations (or standard errors) of the mean. This implies that while 95% of individual
tablet measurements would be between 89 and 91, 95% of means of 4 tablet
measurements would be between 89.5 and 90.5. Thus, the effect of the averaging
process is that a sample mean result is likely to be closer to the long-run or batch
average, than a randomly selected single tablet measurement would be. This is why
we base decisions on means, in practice.

The histograms/curves of Figure 1.5.1 are Normal (probably a reasonable

assumption for tablet dissolution). However, what has been described does not
depend on the assumption of an underlying Normal distribution. Even if the curve
for individual tablets had been skewed, the mean of the sampling distribution would

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 27

be the same as that of the individual tablets and the standard error would still be
n. What is interesting, though, is that, as the number of measurements on which
each mean is based increases, the shape of the sampling distribution approaches
that of a Normal curve, even when the underlying distribution shape is non-Normal.

We will illustrate this interesting and important result using some data simulated from
a skewed distribution, specifically from a chi-square distribution with 7 degrees of
freedom (we will encounter the chi-square distribution later when we discuss
significance tests; here, it is used simply as a typically skewed distribution curve).

Figure 1.5.2 shows the theoretical curve, while Figure 1.5.3 shows a histogram of
200 values randomly generated from this distribution.

Figure 1.5.2: A chi-square curve with 7 degrees of freedom

50

40

30
Frequency

20

10

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Figure 1.5.3: Histogram of 200 values from a chi-square curve with 7 df

Figure 1.5.4 shows the corresponding Normal plot which has the characteristic
curved shape, we saw previously for skewed distributions.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 28

 25 Mean 7.485
StDev 4.007
N 200
20 AD 3.856
P-Value <0.005

Simulated Data 15

10

-5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Score

Figure 1.5.4:Normal plot of 200 values from a chi-square curve with 7 df

Thirty values were randomly generated from this distribution and the mean was
obtained. This was repeated 200 times, resulting in a sample of 200 means. A
histogram of these means is shown in Figure 1.5.5, while Figure 1.5.6 represents a
Normal plot of the set of 200 means.

50

40
Frequency

30

20

10

0
5 6 7 8 9
Mean

Figure 1.5.5:Histogram of 200 means each based on 30 values from a chi-square

curve with 7 df

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 29

 Mean 6.939
9 StDev 0.7326
N 200
AD 0.211
P-Value 0.858
8

Mean
6

4
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Score

Figure 1.5.6: Normal plot of 200 means each based on 30 values from a chi-square curve
with 7 df

The effect of averaging has been particularly successful here in producing means
which closely follow a Normal distribution (not all samples will be quite so good).
The mathematical theory says that as the sample size tends to infinity, the means
become Normal; it is clear, though, that even with a sample size of 30 in this case,
the Normal approximation is very good.

In pathological cases (e.g., extremely skewed distributions) the sampling distribution

curve will not be Normal for the moderate sample sizes that are likely to be used in
practice. In most cases, however, where the underlying curve is not too far from a
Normal curve, the sampling distribution is reasonably close to a Normal curve, and
this allows us use statistical methods based on the assumption of Normality. Apart
from its common occurrence in practice (as seen in several examples in Section 1.1)
this property of sampling distributions is the reason why the Normal curve is so
important in statistics.

1.6 Measurement Systems

The same symmetrical characteristics as seen for the data of Section 1.1 are
displayed in Figure 1.6.1, but it is different in one important respect – the picture is
based on 119 repeated measurements of the same pharmaceutical material,
whereas all our earlier examples were based on single measurements on different
people or objects. The material measured was a control material used in monitoring
the measurement process in a quality control analytical laboratory in a
pharmaceutical manufacturing company [See Mullins [7] Chapters 1, 2]. The
methods discussed in Section 1.3 show that a Normal curve is a good model for
these data, also.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 30

 95.4 96.0 96.6 97.2 97.8

Figure 1.6.1: Repeated potency (%) measurements on a control material

In using the Normal curve in a measurement context we have a different conceptual

model for our data than that for the previously cited examples. Where the numbers
referred to different physical entities (whether these were people, industrial
components or flowers) the curves refer to variation between those units – some
entities give values much higher or lower than others, but most cluster in the centre.
For measurement systems we do not have a physical distribution; we have an
hypothetical distribution of the many thousands of measurements that might be
made on the single physical entity that is to be measured. In practice, of course, the
vast majority of these measurements will never be made, so our questions about the
‘system’ of measurements are somewhat abstract in nature, but we are so
accustomed to dealing with measurements that this abstraction often goes un-
discussed. Two aspects of measurement quality are illustrated by Figure 1.6.2,
namely bias and precision.

95 100 105 110 115

Figure 1.6.2: Measurements on the same entity by two measurement systems

4
Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) is an enzyme found in most human tissue.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 31

Suppose this picture represents smoothed histograms, based on thousands of
measurements made on the same object/material by two different measurement
systems A, B. It is clear that System A gives lower values, on average, i.e., the
long-run mean for A is smaller than that for B, A<B. System A is said to be biased
downwards relative to System B. Which system gives the ‘right’ results, on average,
(i.e., is unbiased) we cannot know unless there is a measurement ‘gold standard’.

The spread of measurements for System B is greater than that for A – A is said to
have better precision. The width of each curve is measured by the standard
deviation, ; the shapes of the curves in Figure 1.6.2 mean that A < B. There is no
necessary relationship between the two parameters. There is no reason why A
could not be bigger than B, while A was less than B.

Figure 1.6.3 [7, 8] shows serum ALT concentrations for 129 adults. It demonstrates
that there is no necessary relationship between the shape of the curve describing
variation in the physical system under study and the shape of the curve that
describes variation in the measurement system used to measure the physical
entities. The ALT distribution (Figure 1.6.3(a)) is right-skewed, that is, it has a long
tail on the right-hand side, which means that some individuals have much higher
ALT levels than the majority of the population.

Figure 1.6.3: Distributions of ALT results (a) 129 adults (b) 119 assays of one specimen

Figure 1.6.3(b) shows the distribution of results obtained when one of the 129 serum
specimens was re-analysed 119 times. The shape of the distribution that describes
the chance analytical variability is very different from that which describes the overall

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 32

variation in ALT measurements. It suggests that a Normal distribution might well
describe the analytical variability. If, therefore, we were interested in studying the
analytical procedure – for, example, to quantify the precision, which is obviously
poor – we might work directly in the arithmetic scale (i.e., the scale in which the
measurements were made. On the other hand, if we wished to make statements
about the distribution of ALT concentrations in the population from which the
subjects derive (by obtaining a reference interval, for example), then we might
choose to transform the data before proceeding with our analysis (in order to get a
Normal curve which is easier to analyse).

Figures 1.6.1 and 1.6.3 underline the importance of the Normal curve for the
analysis of measurement systems, as the graphs of Section 1.1 showed its
importance for describing chance variation in different physical populations.

Exercises

1.6.1. (i) An unbiased analytical system is used to measure an analyte whose true value for
the parameter measured is 100 units. If the standard deviation of repeated
measurements is 0.80 units, what fraction of measurements will be further than one
unit from the true value? Note that this fraction will also be the probability that a
single measurement will produce a test result which is either less than 99 or greater
than 101, when the material is measured. What fraction of measurements will be
further than 1.5 units from the true value? Give the answers to two decimal places.

(ii) Suppose now that the analytical protocol requires making either 2 or 3 measurements
and reporting the mean of these as the measured value. Recalculate the
probabilities for an error of one unit and compare them to those obtained for a single
measurement.

1.7 Case Study: Statistical Process Control Charts

In this chapter we have discussed various aspects of the Normal curve as a model
for statistical variation. This final section illustrates the use of a graphical tool for
monitoring the stability of a system. This tool, the control chart, is based on the
properties of the Normal curve and is an example of a powerful practical tool based
on simple underlying ideas.

Statistical process control (SPC) charts were introduced for monitoring production
systems but, as we shall see, they have much wider applicability. Conceptually they
are very simple: a small sample of product is taken regularly from the process and
some product parameter is measured. The values of a summary statistic (such as
the sample mean) are plotted in time order on a chart; if the chart displays other than
random variation around the expected result it suggests that something has changed
in the process. To help decide if this has happened control limits are plotted on the
chart: the responses are expected to remain inside these limits. Rules are decided
upon which will define non-random behaviour.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 33

The most commonly used charts were developed by Shewhart [9] in Bell
Laboratories in the nineteen twenties. He described variation as being due either to
‘chance causes’ or ‘assignable causes’. Chance causes are the myriad of small
influences that are responsible for the characteristic Normal shape, which we saw in
a variety of settings in Section 1.1. Shewhart’s crucial insight was that stability must
be understood in the context of this inevitable chance variation, not in the
commonplace notion of ‘unchange’. Assignable causes are larger: they tend to
change the mean or the standard deviation of a process distribution. If a process is
stable such that it exhibits only random variation around a given reference value and
the size of that variation (as measured by the standard deviation) remains constant,
Shewhart described it as being ‘in statistical control’ or simply ‘in control’. The
objective in using control charts is to achieve and maintain this state of statistical
control. Control charts were developed to control engineering production processes,
but, as Charts 2, 3 and 4 will show, they can be applied just as effectively to
measurement systems. Any apparent differences between the two situations
disappear when we think of a measurement system as a production process whose
output is measurements. Chart 5 illustrates the use of a control chart in a retail
sales setting.

For an extensive discussion of control charts in a manufacturing environment see

Montgomery [10]. For an introduction to the use of control charts for monitoring
measurement systems see Mullins [7]. Stuart [11] gives a less technical introduction
to control charts in industry than does Montgomery; he also discusses their
application in a retail business context (see Chart 5, which is ‘borrowed’ from
Stuart!).

Chart 1: Monitoring Production Systems

Figure 1.7.1 shows a control chart for a critical dimension (mm) of moulded plastic
medical device components, each of which contained a metal insert purchased from
an outside supplier.

Twenty five samples of size n=5 were taken from the stream of parts manufactured
over a period of several weeks, with a view to setting up control charts to monitor the
process. The five sample results were averaged and it is the average that is plotted
in the chart. For now, the centre line (CL) and control limits (upper and lower control
limits, UCL and LCL) will be taken as given; later, the rationale for the limits will be
discussed.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 34

 3.70

UCL=3.6713
3.65

3.60

Sample Mean
_
_
3.55 X=3.5537

3.50

3.45
LCL=3.4361

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Sample

Figure 1.7.1: An X-bar chart for the moulded plastic components

In using control charts different companies/users apply different rules to identify

instability. For example, the SPC manual of the Automotive Industry Action Group
[12] (AIAG: a task force set up by the Ford, Chrysler and General Motors companies
to unify their SPC procedures) suggests that action is required if any of the following
occur:

• any point outside of the control limits;

• a run of seven points all above or all below the central line;

• a run of seven points in a row that are consistently increasing (equal to or

greater than the preceding points) or consistently decreasing;

• any other obviously non-random pattern.

Runs of nine points, rather than seven, are also commonly recommended. The
same basic principle underlies all the rules: a system that is in statistical control
should exhibit purely random behaviour - these rules correspond to improbable
events on such an assumption. Accordingly, violation of one of the rules suggests
that a problem has developed in the process and that action is required. The
rationale for the rules is discussed below.

The manufacturing process to which Figure 1.7.1 refers appears, by these rules, to
be in statistical control. No points are outside the control limits and there are no long
runs of points upwards or downwards or at either side of the central line.

Chart 2: Monitoring a HPLC Assay

To monitor the stability of a measurement system, a control sample may be

measured repeatedly over time, together with the test samples that are of primary
interest. The control sample results are then plotted on a control chart. The centre

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 35

line for this chart is the accepted correct value for the control material (typically the
mean of recent measurements on the material), and newly measured values for the
control material are expected to vary at random around the centre line. Sometimes
the centre line might be the certified value for a bought-in or a ‘house’ reference
material.

95.5 UCL=95.519

95.0

94.5
%Potency

_
X=94.150
94.0

93.5

93.0
LCL=92.781

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45
Observation

Figure 1.7.2 A control chart for the HPLC potency assay

Figure 1.7.2 shows a control chart for a HPLC potency assay of a pharmaceutical
product [7]. The data displayed in the chart were collected over a period of several
months. At each time point two replicate measurements were made on a control
material, which was just a quantity of material from one batch of the production
material routinely manufactured and then measured in the laboratory. These results
were averaged and it is the average that is plotted in the chart.

The average level of the measurement system to which Figure 1.7.2 refers appears,
by the AIAG rules, to be in statistical control. No points are outside the control limits
and there are no long runs of points upwards or downwards or on either side of the
central line. Accordingly, we can feel confident that the analytical system is stable
and producing trustworthy results.

Chart 3: Monitoring both Production and Analytical Systems

Figure 1.7.3 illustrates the benefits of having control charts in use for both production
results and analytical control data, when product reviews are carried out.

Figure 1.7.3(a) shows potencies for a series of batches of a drug with a clear
downwards shift in results. Such a shift suggests problems in the production
system, but would often lead to production management questioning the quality of
the analytical results. It has to be someone else’s fault!

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 36

As shown in Figure 1.7.3(b), a stable control chart for the analytical system for the
same period is the best possible defence of the stability of the analytical results. If,
on the other hand, there had been a downward shift in the analytical system it would
have been reflected in Figure 1.7.3(b). Recognising such a shift would save much
time that would otherwise be wasted searching for a non-existent production
problem. Thus, the availability of control charts for both the production and
analytical systems allows data-driven decision-making and can reduce inter-
departmental friction when problems arise at the interface5.

Figure 1.7.3: Simultaneous control charts for a production system (a) and the analytical
system (b) used to measure the potency of its product.

Chart 4: An Unstable Analytical System

Figure 1.7.4, represents 49 measurements on control samples made up to contain

50 parts per billion (ppb) of iron in pure water [7]. The sample was analysed by an
Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Spectrometer over a period of months.

5
In fact, the problem here could be due to changes in an in-coming raw material; so a third control
chart might well be worthwhile!

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 37

 55
UCL=54.02

50
Fe Result

Mean=48.2

45

LCL=42.38

40
0 10 20 30 40 50
Run Number

Figure 1.7.4: A control chart for the iron (Fe) content of a water sample (ppb)

The diagram shows an analytical system which is clearly out of control; in fact, three
gross outliers were removed before this chart was drawn. The data were collected
retrospectively from the laboratory records; the laboratory did not use control charts
routinely. They are presented here because they exhibit the classic features of an
out-of-control system: several points outside the control limits, a run of points above
the centre line and a run of points downwards. There is an obvious need to stabilise
this analytical system.

There are two ways in which control charts are used, viz., for assessing
retrospectively the performance of a system (as in Figure 1.7.4) and for maintaining
the stability of a system, which is their routine use once stability has been
established. Where a chart is being used to monitor a system we would not expect
to see a pattern such as is exhibited between observations 17 and 32 of Figure
1.7.4, where 16 points are all either on or above the centre line. Use of a control
chart should lead to the upward shift suggested here being corrected before such a
long sequence of out-of-control points could develop.

Note that if the chart were being used for on-going control of the measurement
process, the centre line would be set at the reference value of 50 ppb. Here the
interest was in assessing the historical performance of the system, and so the data
were allowed determine the centre line of the chart.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 38

The Theory Underlying the Control Limits

The centre line (CL) for the chart should be the mean value around which the
measurements are expected to vary at random. In a manufacturing context, this
could be the target value for the process parameter being measured, where there is
a target, but in most cases it is the mean of the most recent observations considered
to be ‘in-control’. Similarly, in a measurement context, the centre line will either be
the mean of recent measurements on the control material, or the accepted ‘true
value’ for an in-house standard or a certified reference material.

The control limits are usually placed three standard deviations above and below the
centre line, Figure 1.7.5(b); the standard deviation of individual measurements is
used if the points plotted are individual measurements, as in Chart 4, and the
standard error of the mean, if the plotted points are means of several measured
values, as in Chart 1. This choice may be based on the assumption that the
frequency distribution of chance causes will follow a Normal curve, or it may be
regarded simply as a sensible rule of thumb, without such an assumption. As we
have seen a distribution curve can be thought of as an idealised histogram: the area
under the curve between any two values on the horizontal axis gives the relative
frequency with which observations occur between these two values. Thus, as
shown in Figure 1.7.5(a), 99.74% of the area under any Normal curve lies within
three standard deviations (3) of the long-run mean () and so, while the system
remains in control, 99.7% of all plotted points would be expected to fall within the
control limits.

Where only single values are measured (as frequently happens in process
industries, for example) the control limits are:

Upper Control Limit (UCL) = CL + 3

Lower Control Limit (LCL) = CL – 3

where  is the standard deviation of individual values.

If, as is more commonly the case in manufacturing of components, the point to be

plotted is the average of a number of values, say n, then an adjustment has to be
made to take account of the fact that means, rather than individual values, are being
plotted. If individual values give a frequency distribution, as shown in Figure
1.7.5(a), with mean  and standard deviation  then a very large number of
averages, each based on n values from the same process, would give a similar
frequency distribution centred on  but the width would be defined by  n (the
‘standard error’). The distribution would be tighter and more of the values would be
close to This simply quantifies the extent to which the averaging process reduces
variability, as discussed in Section 1.5: see Figure 1.5.1, in particular.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 39

 Figure 1.7.5: Three sigma limits and a process shift

To obtain the correct control limits when plotting averages, we simply replace  by 
n expressions given above and obtain:

Upper Control Limit (UCL) = CL  n

Lower Control Limit (LCL) = CL –  n

where  is (as before) the standard deviation of individual values. The chart based
on single measurements is sometimes called an ‘Individuals or X-chart’ while the
chart based on means is called an ‘X-bar chart’; the two charts are, however,
essentially the same. Note that in a laboratory measurement context, where n is
typically 2 or 3, the simplest and safest approach is to average the replicates and
treat the resulting means as individual values (see Mullins [7], Chapter 2).

The limits described above are known as ‘three sigma limits’, for obvious reasons;
they are also called ‘action limits’. They were first proposed by Shewhart in the

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 40

nineteen twenties and are almost universally used with this type of control chart.
Their principal justification is that if the process is in control then the probability of a
point going outside the control limits is very small: about three in a thousand.
Accordingly, they give very few false alarm signals. If a point does go outside the
control limits it seems much more likely that a problem has arisen (e.g., the process
average has shifted upwards or downwards; see Figure 1.7.5(c)) than that the
process is stable, as in Figure 1.7.5(b), but the chance causes have combined to
give a highly improbable result. This is the rationale for the first AIAG rule, quoted
above.

The basis for the second AIAG rule (a run of seven points all above or all below the
central line) is that if the system is in control the probability that any one value is
above or below the central line is 1/2. Accordingly, the probability that seven in a row
will be at one side of the central line is (1/2)7=1/128; again, such an occurrence would
suggest that the process has shifted upwards or downwards. The third rule (a run of
seven points in a row that are consistently increasing (equal to or greater than the
preceding points) or consistently decreasing) has a similar rationale: if successive
values are varying at random about the centre line, we would not expect long runs in
any one direction.

The last catch-all rule (any other obviously non-random pattern) is one to be careful
of: the human eye is adept at finding patterns, even in random data. The advantage
of having clear-cut rules that do not allow for subjective judgement is that the same
decisions will be made, irrespective of who is using the chart. Having said this, if
there really is ‘obviously non-random’ behaviour in the chart (e.g., cycling of results
between day and night shift) it would be foolish to ignore it.

The assumption that the data follow a Normal frequency distribution is more critical
for charts based on individual values than for those based on averages. Averages,
as we saw in Section 1.5, tend to follow the Normal distribution unless the
distribution of the values on which they are based is highly skewed. In principle, this
tendency holds when the averages are based on very large numbers of
observations, but in practice samples of even four or five will often be well behaved
in this regard. If there is any doubt concerning the distribution of the measurements
a Normal probability plot (see Section 1.3) may be used to check the assumption.

Chart 5: A retail sales control chart

Stuart [11] considered the problem of monitoring cash variances in the till of a retail
outlet – a sports club bar. At the end of each day's trading, the cash in the till is
counted. The till is then set to compute the total cash entered through the keys,
which is printed on the till roll. The cash variance is the difference between cash
and till roll totals (note that ‘variance’ as used here is an accounting term, which is
not the same as the statistical use of the same word, i.e., the square of the standard
deviation). Small errors in giving change or in entering cash amounts on the till keys

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 41

are inevitable in a busy bar. Ideally, the cash variance will be zero. In the presence
of inevitable chance variation, the best that can be hoped for is that the cash
variances will centre on zero. In other words, the cash variance process is ideally
expected to be a pure chance process with a process mean of zero.

A control chart covering Sunday cash variances for a year is shown in Figure 1.7.6.
The variances are recorded in pounds (the data pre-date the Euro). The centre line,
is placed at zero, the desired process mean. The control limits are placed at ±£12;
the limits were established using data from the previous year.

Sundays
20

12 UC L
V
a 4
r CL
i -4
a
n - 12 LC L
c
e - 20

10 20 30 40 50

We ek

Figure 1.7.6: Sunday cash variances control chart

As may be seen from the chart, this process was well behaved for the most part,
apart from three points outside the control limits. For the first point, week 12, value
£14.83, the large positive cash variance indicates either too much cash having been
put in the till or not enough entered through the till keys. When the bar manager
queried this, one of the bar assistants admitted a vague recollection of possibly
having given change out of £5 instead of out of £10 to a particular customer. The
customer involved, when asked, indicated that she had suspected an error, but had
not been sure. The £5 was reimbursed.

In the second case, week 34, value –£22.08, an assistant bar manager who was on
duty that night paid a casual bar assistant £20 wages out of the till but did not follow
the standard procedure of crediting the till with the relevant amount.

The last case, week 51, value -£18.63, was unexplained at first. However, other out
of control negative cash variances on other nights of the week were observed, and
these continued into the following year. Suspicion rested on a recently employed
casual bar assistant. An investigation revealed that these cash variances occurred

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 42

only when that bar assistant was on duty and such a coincidence applied to no other
member of staff. The services of that bar assistant were ‘no longer required’ and the
cash variances returned to normal.

1.8 Conclusion

This chapter has introduced the concept of statistical variation – the fact that objects
or people selected from the same population or process give different numerical
results when measured on the same characteristic. It also showed that, where the
same object/person was measured repeatedly, different numerical results were
obtained, due to chance measurement error. In many cases, the variation between
numerical results can be described, at least approximately, by a Normal curve.

This curve will often describe the variation between means of repeated samples,
also, even where the raw data on which the means are based come from
distributions that are not themselves Normal. This fact is of great importance for
what follows: the most commonly used statistical procedures are based on means;
therefore, statistical methods based on Normal distributions will very often be
applicable in their analysis. For this reason, the properties of the Normal curve and
its use in some simple situations (e.g., developing reference intervals in medicine, or
use of control charts in industrial manufacturing or in monitoring measurement
systems) were discussed in the chapter.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 43

 References

[1] Minitab Statistical Software, ( www.minitab.com )

[2] Anderson, E., The irises of the Gaspé peninsula, Bulletin of the American Iris
Society 59, 2-5, 1935.
[3] Fisher, R.A., The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems, Annals
of Eugenics 7, 179-188, 1936.
[4] Bland, M., An Introduction to Medical Statistics, Oxford University Press, 2000.
[5] Strike, P.W. Measurement in Laboratory Medicine, Butterworth-Heinemann,
1996.
[6] Hahn, G.J.and Meeker, W.Q., Statistical Intervals: a guide for practitioners,
Wiley, 1991.
[7] Mullins, E., Statistics for the Quality Control Chemistry Laboratory, Royal
Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, 2003.
[8] Samuels, M.L., Statistics for the Life Sciences, Dellen Publishing Company,
1989.
[9] Shewhart, W. A., Economic Control of the Quality of Manufactured Products,
Macmillan, London, 1931.
[10] Montgomery, D.C., Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, Wiley, 2005
[11] Stuart, M., An Introduction to Statistical Analysis for Business and Industry,
Hodder, 2003.
[12] Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation,
Statistical Process Control: Reference Manual, 1995.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 44

 Outline Solutions

1.2.1.

(a)
A weight of 85 mg corresponds to a Z value of –2.14 as shown below – the
standard Normal table gives an area of 0.0162 to the left of –2.14, so the area
to the left of 85 is also 0.0162.

x 85  100
z   2.14
 7

P(X < 85) = P(Z < -2.14) = P(Z>2.14) = 1 – P(Z < 2.14) = 1 – 0.9838 = 0.0162

By symmetry, the area above 115 is also 0.0162

Approximately, 1.6% of tablets will have weights either greater than 115 mg or
less than 85 mg, which means that about 3.2% of tablets are outside these
limits.

(b) The calculations for part (b) are carried out in exactly the same way as those
for (a).

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 45

(c) (i)

If we inspect the standard Normal table to find the value that has an area of
0.99 below it, we find Z=2.33; therefore, -2.33 will have an area of 0.01 below it.

P(Z < -2.33) = 0.01

K  100
Z  2.33 
7

This means that K = 100 – 2.33(7) = 100 – 16.31 = 83.69

99% of tablets would be expected to weigh more than 83.69 mg.

(ii)

P(Z < 2.575) = 0.995 => P(Z >2.575) = 0.005

and, by symmetry, P(Z < –2.575) = 0.005

B  100
Z  2.575 
7

This means that B = 100 + 2.575(7) = 100 +18.025 = 118.025 mg

By symmetry A = 100 – 2.575(7) = 100 –18.025 = 81.975 mg

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 46

1.2.2. In the log10 scale we have a Normal distribution with mean 2.7423 and
standard deviation 0.1604.

(i) Calculate the bounds (a, b) for the 95% reference interval in the log
scale.

The reference bounds are: –1.96 and +1.96 which gives:

2.7423 ± 1.96(0.1604) or 2.4279 to 3.0567.

(ii) Use your results to obtain the corresponding reference interval in the
original measurement scale: the bounds will be (10 a, 10b).

102.4279=267.9 and 103.0567=1139.5, so our reference interval in the

original measurement scale is 267.9 to 1139.5 (i.e., 268 to 1140 in
practice). Note that although the mean 2.7423 is the centre of the
interval in the log scale, when we back transform [10 2.7423=552.5], the
corresponding value in the arithmetic scale is not centred between the
two bounds – the right-hand bound is much further above 552.5 than
the lower bound is below it. This reflects the skewed shape of the
original histogram. In fact, 552.5 is an estimate of the median (the
steroid value below which and above which 50% of the women lie).
For a symmetrical distribution the mean and the median coincide, but
for right-skewed distributions the mean will be higher; thus, the mean
of the 100 original steroid values is 590.8 – the long tail pulls the mean
upwards. Income distributions, for example, are typically quite
skewed, and the relatively small number of very high income
individuals increases the average income – the median value is,
therefore, a better one-number summary of a ‘typical’ member of the
population.

Note also that the calculations above will be quite sensitive to the
number of decimal places used.

(iii) What value, U, should be quoted such that only 1% of women from this
population would be expected to have a -OHCS measurement which
exceeds U?

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 47

 (note: curves are schematic and not to scale)

The critical value on the standard Normal curve which has 0.99 to the left and
0.01 to the right is 2.33. From the relation:

x
z


it is clear that the corresponding value for a Normal curve with mean
and standard deviation =0.1604 is =3.1160. Only 1% of
the Log10(-OHCS) values would be expected to exceed Log10(U)=3.1160.
The corresponding value in the original measurement scale is U=103.1160=
1306.2.

1.4.1. We begin by finding the parameters for the doctorate completion time, T

T = L + P + D + W = 30 + 10 + 120 + 16 = 176

T = L + P +D + W = 82 + 32 + 122 + 32 = 226

 T   L2   P2   D
2
 W
2
 15.03

Since all four components of the total time are assumed to be Normally
distributed, the total time, T, will also have a Normal distribution.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 48

(i) P(T < 3 years) = P(T < 156 weeks)

T  T 156 176
P(T  156)  P(Z  )  P(Z  )  P(T  1.33)  P(T  1.33)
T 15.03
 1  P(T  1.33)  0.09

The probability that the doctorate will take less than 3 years (156 weeks)
is 0.09.

(ii) P(T > 3.5 years) = P(T > 182 weeks)

T  T 182  176
P(T  182)  P( Z  )  P( Z  )  P(T  0.3992)
T 15.03
 1  P(T  0.40)  1  0.655  0.345

The chances of the postgraduate work taking more than three and a half
years (182 weeks) are about 0.35.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 49

(iii)
Similarly, the probability that the work will take more than 4 years (208
weeks) is about 0.02, as shown below.

T  T 208  176
P (T  208)  P ( Z  )  P( Z  )  P (T  2.13)
T 15.03
 1  P (T  2.13)  1  0.9834  0.0166

This example illustrates the analysis of project planning networks. Of

course, the current set of tasks is the simplest possible ‘network’ – a linear
sequence of activities. Real projects (consider for example the
construction of an electricity generating station) may involve thousands of
activities, some of which may proceed simultaneously (‘in parallel’), while
others must be fully completed before others may begin (e.g., foundations
must be in place before walls can be built – these activities are ‘in series’).

1.6.1.

(i) A measurement of 101 corresponds to a Z value of 1.25 as shown below

– the standard Normal table gives an area of 0.8944 to the left of 1.25, so
the area to the right of 1.25 is 0.1056. The probability that a single
measurement will exceed 101 is, accordingly, 0.1056.

x 101  100

z   1.25
 0.8

P(X > 101) = P(Z>1.25) = 1 – P(Z < 1.25) = = 1 – 0.8944 = 0.1056

By symmetry, the probability that a single measurement will be less than

99 is also 0.1056. Hence, the probability that a single measurement will
be more than one unit from the true value is 2(0.1056) or 0.21.

The corresponding calculation for a divergence of 1.5 units shows a

probability of 0.06.

(ii) We saw in Section 1.5 that means are less variable than single
measurements and, specifically, that the variability of means is given by
the standard error (the standard deviation for single values divided by the
square root of the number of values on which the mean is based). To
allow for the averaging in our calculations, therefore, we simple replace
the standard deviation by the standard error.

The probability that a mean of two measurements will exceed 101 is given
by:

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 50

 x 101  100
z   1.77
/ n 0.8 / 2

Where now represents the mean of two measurements.

P( ̅ > 101) = P(Z> 1.77)= 1 – P(Z < 1.77) = = 1 – 0.9616 = 0.0384

By symmetry, the probability that the mean of two measurement will be

less than 99 is also 0.0384. Hence, the probability that the mean of two
measurements will be more than one unit from the true value is 2(0.0384)
or 0.08.

The value of making even two measurements instead of one is clear – the
probability of an error of one unit has been reduced from 0.21 to 0.08.

The corresponding probability for the mean of three measurements is

0.03.

Text © Eamonn Mullins, 2012; data, see references.

JF Mathematics (SH and TSM) 51