PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 24, 2026Quality and Reliability Engineering International1 citations

Bootstrap Confidence Intervals for Process Capability Indices Using Semiparametric Approach

View Full Paper
MMMaqbool MehwishZHZhensheng Huang

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate the performance of different estimation methods for process capability indices under non-normal data conditions.
  • Compared maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), ordinary least squares (OLS), and a hybrid method.
  • Focused on right-censored data modeled by a piecewise exponential distribution.
  • Evaluated generalized confidence intervals (GCI), asymptotic confidence intervals (ACI), and various bootstrap confidence intervals.
  • MLE consistently outperformed OLS and the hybrid method, especially in small sample sizes.
  • GCI achieved the closest coverage to the nominal level (0.95) with smaller widths in small samples.
  • Bootstrap intervals showed variable performance based on sample size and rate settings.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Process capability indices (PCIs) are widely used to evaluate how well a process performs, typically under the assumption of normality. However, when the data are non‐normal or include censoring, traditional PCIs may produce inaccurate results. This study focuses on estimating the capability indices and under a piecewise exponential (PWE) distribution, specifically for right‐censored data. Three estimation methods are compared: maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), ordinary least squares (OLS), and a hybrid method based on their bias and mean squared error (MSE), using the quantile‐based approach proposed by Pearn and Chen for indices and . Simulation results show that MLE consistently outperforms OLS and the hybrid method, especially for small samples. Estimates of were closer to the target values and more stable than estimates. For both and , we evaluated generalized (GCI), asymptotic (ACI), and bootstrap confidence intervals (BCI; SB, PB, and BCPB). Among bootstrap intervals, BCPB performed well for , while for , bootstrap performance depended on sample size and rate settings. Comparing all intervals using average width (AW) and coverage probability (CP), it is observed that GCI achieved coverage closest to the nominal level (0.95) with smaller widths, particularly for small samples, compared with other methods. ACI performed well for moderate‐to‐large samples, and bootstrap interval performance varied by setting. Overall, MLE combined with GCI provides accurate and stable results for PCIs, especially in small samples, while all methods converge asymptotically as the sample size increases. These results were also confirmed using two real‐life datasets. Future studies can extend the rate configurations, use powerful estimation methods, and can also expand the methodology to other indices like and .

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mehwish et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69eb0a2e553a5433e34b468chttps://doi.org/10.1002/qre.70224
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Bootstrap Confidence Intervals of Process Capability Indices S pmk and C py Using Different Methods of Estimation for Marshall‐Olkin Inverse Log‐Logistic Distribution2025 · 3 citations
  2. 2Bayesian and classical inference of the process capability index under progressive type-II censoring scheme2024 · 12 citations
  3. 3Investigating the Effect of Small Sample Process Capability Index Under Different Bootstrap Methods2024 · 2 citations
  4. 4Process Capability Indices1986 · 1,298 citations
  5. 5A Reanalysis of the Stanford Heart Transplant Data1983 · 99 citations