> %` t:bjbj"x"x 7@@J2)vvvvvvv!!!8
"\f")V2f#f#"######UUUUUUU$[WhYUvT(##T(T(Uvv##U+++T(v#v#U+T(U++R8MvvO#Z#A!l),N|Q,U0)VJN}Z*x}Z<OO8}Zv,PP#n$+%%###UU+d###)VT(T(T(T( D vvvvvvPT Frequency Subcommittee
Summary of study of data from New Jersey State programs
Description of Spreadsheet Reports
November 7, 2008
Data include PT data for 3 years from all New Jersey labs that participated in state-mandated programs provided by ERA (Arvada, CO). The laboratories include NELAP accredited laboratories that must participate twice a year, and other State-certified laboratories that participate once annually (unless a second study is necessary because of a failure). The objective is to compare performance in the two groups of laboratories.
The analysis includes 400+ analytes in the NELAC FoPT tables, but were limited to those analytes where there were at least 10 laboratories in each group (1/yr or 2/yr). Analytes were reviewed individually and in classes (e.g., metals, pesticides, anions, etc.); the summary of classes includes only those analytes that were studied individually. The study looked at all of the studies each year (NELAC labs could take any study) and at all studies in all three years.
The study data include all results that were submitted to satisfy regulatory requirements in New Jersey. In some cases, laboratories submitted results from a single analysis to satisfy requirements for more than one method. These replicate results occur with varying frequency for different analytes. The subcommittee investigated the effect of replicate results on the conclusions of the study, and this investigation showed that the conclusions from the analysis do not change or, in many cases, are more pronounced. The results for the full data file and the file with duplicates removed, for several classes of analytes, are shown in the file PT Frequency Data Summary Duplicate Reporting Comparison Oct 2008 NJDEP Study.pdf.
18K View as HTML Download . The subcommittee did not agree on which data set was more appropriate, but agreed that the conclusions are the same, so the original results are shown in the posted reports.
Key outcome variables for each group are as follows:
Percentage of results that are unacceptable, using NELAC FoPT criteria;
Average absolute Z score, calculated using study mean and SD, and with a limit where any Z score > 5 (or < -5) is assigned to be Z=5 or Z=-5;
Average percentage recovery (using the assigned value (generally, the manufactured value); this analysis used trimmed data where results were limited by twice the acceptance limit and by 10% of the assigned value. All results that were outside that range were trimmed to equal the limit. This trimming (also called Winsorization) is done to reduce the impact of outlying results on the average and SD.
Standard deviation of recovery (using trimmed data).
Statistical tests were conducted for significant differences in the unacceptable rate and the variance of percentage recovery. Tests were conducted to allow comparison at any level of significance (using p values), but summaries of significance tests are for those differences that are significant at the 5% level.
Statistical tests are conventional two-sided tests: the Z test for differences in proportions and the F test for differences in variances. The tests in this analysis used Excel formulae, which are appropriate for large-samples. These statistical tests are not always appropriate for the smaller sample comparisons in some of these analyses, such as for single analytes or very low unacceptable rates. The statistical tests could be more rigorous for small samples and low rates, but these tests are more complex and require different software. It would be possible to use a test for differences in Z scores (nonparametric Wilcoxon test), but this would be redundant with the test of variances in recovery. The subcommittee agrees that the differences observed are consistent across years and across classes of chemicals in all three matrices (WS, WP, Soil). Therefore statistical tests are not necessary, since they test only for whether the observed differences are a product of chance or are a real effect. It would be more appropriate to use the available data to estimate what the difference is, and as a baseline for similar examinations with other datasets. The subcommittee is conducting additional studies with data from other states.
Therefore, at least for now, the PT Expert Committee agrees that further statistical tests are not necessary. With a very few exceptions for some analytes for some years, the group that takes PT twice per year has lower unacceptable rates and smaller z scores. There is no consistent difference in the average percentage recovery in the two groups, even though the variance of recovery was often significantly higher in the 1/yr group.
The spreadsheets that are posted on the TNI website contain detailed tables of the analysis. Data are presented for the following analyses for every class of analyte:
Analysis of individual analytes in each class across the entire 3 year period
Analysis for each class across the entire 3 year period (studied analytes only)
Analysis of each class in each one year period
Analyte summary
Studies a,b,c above are presented in Tables with the items of information listed in Table 1. Study d is presented with the items listed in Table 2. These Tables include an example from data in the WP Anion study (file PT Frequency Data Summary Anions August 12 2008 NJDEP Study.pdf). Other classes of analytes and study matrices follow this example.
All analyses are summarized in the file PT Frequency Complete Data Summary August 12 2008 NJDEP Study.pdf. The Table formats match Tables 1 and 2, but include summary data for all classes separately within each matrix, and for unacceptable rates only, the differences in unacceptable rate. Data are also shown for analytes that were not used for comparing groups, because of insufficient numbers of laboratories for a reliable comparison. The tables list the numbers of laboratories, number of results, and the performance statistics.
The all analyte summary shows results combined for all matrices and studies. The Table on page 1 of file PT Frequency Complete Data Summary August 12 2008 NJDEP Study.pdf shows first the overall difference in unacceptable rates for all 428 analytes in the study in all matrices. Based on 19781 results for the 1PT group the rate of unacceptable results was 5.63% and for 33239 results for the 2PT group the unacceptable rate was 2.09%. The lower part of the table shows the number of analytes for which the differences were significantly different at the .05 level of significance. For 125 of the 438 analytes, the 1PT group had significantly higher unacceptable rates; for 2 of the 428 analytes, the 2PT group had significantly higher unacceptable rates. For 301 of the 428 analytes the unacceptable rates were not significantly different at the .05 level.
Conclusions:
1. The group of laboratories that participates in PT two or more times each year has consistently lower rates of unacceptable results on PT samples than does the group of laboratories that participates one time each year.
2. The average recovery in the two groups are similar, although the variation of recovery is lower in the group that does PT twice per year.
3. The groups of laboratories in this study differ in ways other than frequency of PT, and these differences could contribute to the observed difference in performance. These other factors include an on-site audit for conformance with all NELAC requirements, and the size of the laboratory.
Contact:
Questions can be directed to the Chairman of the PT Frequency Subcommittee, Dan Tholen (A2LA).
Dans telephone number is 231.929.1721 (Eastern time) and
e-mail: tholen.dan@gmail.com
Table 1: Summary data by analyte and by class: Example from
WP Anion data, pages 1 and 3 of file:
PT Frequency Data Summary Anions August 12 2008 NJDEP Study.pdf
Column name Content Example data Interpretation
Lab Group1PT or 2PT1PT and 2PTDefines frequency group of interestStudy TypeName of Study TypeWPOne of 4 typesStudy Open Date MinimumDate range for study, lowPage1 Row1: 5/9/2005Earliest study date for this row of dataStudy Open Date MaximumDate range for study, highPage1 Row1: 4/14/2008Latest study date for this row of data. This row covers the entire study period for WPClass Name or Analyte NameName of Analyte or ClassPage1: Anions
Page3: Analyte namePage 1: Summary for class
Page3: Summary by analyteNELAC Analyte NumberPage1: missing
Page3: includedNot relevant for classNumber of individual LabsNumber of different labs studiedPage 1 Rows 1-2: 35 labs in 1PT group; 17 labs in 2PT groupAverage Number PT per YearAverage number of PT studies per lab per yearPage 1 Rows 1-2: 1.13 for labs in 1PT group; 2.62 for labs in 2PT groupShows that labs take PT for more than one technology, or as corrective actionTotal Number Data PointsTotal data points for this analysisPage 1 Rows 1-2: 306 for labs in 1PT group; 474 for labs in 2PT groupMore results from 2PT group, even with fewer labsTotal Number Not AcceptableNumber of results that exceed evaluation limitsPage 1 Rows 1-2: 30 for labs in 1PT group; 15 for labs in 2PT groupFailure RatePercentage of results that are not acceptablePage 1 Rows 1-2: 9.80% for labs in 1PT group; 3.16% for labs in 2PT groupShaded number indicates significantly higher rateAverage Absolute z scoreAverage |z| for results in groupPage 1 Rows 1-2: 1.2278 for labs in 1PT group; 0.8930 for labs in 2PT groupThis is consistent with the unacceptable rateAverage RecoveryAveraged with all plus and minusPage 1 Rows 1-2: 100.3% for labs in 1PT group; 97.5% for labs in 2PT groupNearly identical average recoveryAverage Recovery Standard DeviationStandard deviation for recovery by groupPage 1 Rows 1-2: 21.7% for labs in 1PT group; 19.3% for labs in 2PT groupShaded represents significantly higher variance. This variance is similar to the average Z scorezCALC Failure RateInterim Statistical calculation on the difference between unacceptable ratesPage 1 Rows 1: 3.883
Page 3 Row1: 2.540Could be looked up in conventional Z tablesSignificance of difference inFailure Rate
H0:p1=p2 Following one-sided normal testPage 1 Rows 1: 0.000
Page3 Row1: 0.006
Page3 Sulfide: .082 almost a significantly higher rate for 2PTHighly significant (much less than .05)Significant difference in Failure Rate .05 level?Indicates whether column P is < .05Page 1, all studies: Significantly Different
Page 3: Different for Chloride and SulfateUsing a conventional .05 cutoff, for shadingFCALC Average Recovery VarianceInterim statistical calculation on ratio of variancesPage 1 Row1: 1.261
Page 3 Row1: 1.338Critial F at p=0.05 for Average Recovery Variance / probability H0:V1=V2Critical F statistic (from tables) and p value for two-sided F testPage1 Rows 1-2: 1.184 and .0122
Page 3 Rows 1-2:
1.336 and 0.0526For all Anions .0122 shows that the difference in variances is highly significant, and much less than .05.
For Chloride the difference is not significant at .05, but is very closeF Test Average Recovery Variance (FCALC < Critical F)Interpretation of whether p value <.05 or greater than .95Page 1 Row 1: Significantly Different
Page 3 Row 1: SameFor all Anions .0122 shows that the difference in variances is highly significant, and much less than .05.
For Chloride the difference is not significant at .05, but is very close
Table 2: All Analyte Summary of Differences by Class:
Example from WP Anion data, page 2 of file:
PT Frequency Data Summary Anions August 12 2008 NJDEP Study.pdf
Column name Content Example data Interpretation
Lab GroupStudy Group1PT and 2PTNumber of AnalytesAnalytes studied individually4 for this analysisFailure Rate Number of analytes Significantly Different HighAnalytes where the Z test was significantRow1: 2
Row2: 0
Row3: 2For 2 analytes the 1PT group had significantly higher unacceptable rates none of the analytes had higher raters in the 2PT group and for 2 analytes the differences were not significantly differentFailure Rate Percentage of analytes Significantly Different HighNumbers of analytes expressed as a percentage50%, 0%, 50%Same as above, with percentages of analytesAverage Recovery Variance Number of analytes Significantly Different HighAnalytes where the F test was significantRow1: 2
Row2: 1
Row3: 1For 2 analytes the 1PT group had significantly larger variance in recovery and for 1 analyte the 2PT group had higher varianceAverage Recovery Variance Percentage Significantly Different HighNumbers expressed as a percentage50%, 25%, 25%For 50% of analytes the 1PT group had significantly larger variance in recovery and for 25% of analytes the 2PT group had higher variance
PAGE
PAGE - 3 -
STovw| ;
<
=
{php]pUh|]CJaJhkShkSCJaJhQWCJaJhkSh>xCJaJh+CJaJhd<CJaJh-CJaJh]'CJaJhkSCJaJhc2lhd<CJaJhc2lh-CJaJhc2lh}rJ5hc2lh=5 h|]5 h 5 hIb5 hmx5hc2lhc2l5 hiW5hc2lhiW5 h"=5hc2lh"=5Tw<
=
Gm
&Fgd}rJ
&Fgd+gd|]gd+h^hgd
>gd}rJ$h^ha$gd]'h^hgdiW$a$gdUKJ:s:jkxXY %5>?Gx8|ǿ{s{{{sh"=CJaJh)sCJaJhgMCJaJhFDCJaJhd<CJaJhmnh+56CJaJh?Uh+56CJaJh+CJaJhCCJaJh>xCJaJhkSCJaJhkShkSCJaJhkSh>xCJaJh|]CJaJh|]h|]CJaJ-'0>?@egCax%-TWXZy ҺҺҗh'CJaJh@7CJaJhd,CJaJhkShGCJaJhGCJaJh7rCJaJhjTCJaJh"=CJaJh~|ECJaJh7'h7'56CJaJhFDCJaJh)sCJaJhgMCJaJ5+y kl"""#a$%%%%,&I&J&&$a$gdX6
&Fgd'gd}rJ%jkl4 5 """"X#{####Ƹװ砏~ph]QFh>hGCJaJhkShGCJaJh(
hF5CJaJhlqhNCJaJhlqCJaJhlqCJOJQJ^JaJ hlqhNCJOJQJ^JaJ hNhNCJOJQJ^JaJhNCJaJh:tCJaJhMECJaJhFCJOJQJ^JaJ hNhFCJOJQJ^JaJhFCJaJh@7CJaJh'CJaJ hFh'CJOJQJ^JaJ###$$$$$$!$.$6$Q$V$Z$`$a$b$$$%%%%%&&,&3&H&I&J&K&S&&ȼȴȨș~ocXhX6hdCJaJhX6hd5CJaJh hd,CJaJmHsHh h@7CJaJmHsHh h 5mHsHh h CJaJmHsHh h 5CJaJhCJaJhh 5CJaJh CJaJhFCJaJhkSCJaJh|]CJaJhIbCJaJhGCJaJhSCJaJ"&&&&&&#'$'.'8'9'<'='@'A'D'E'h'i'u'''''''''''''
((($(>(?(J(K(~sskh;#CJaJh,RhdCJaJh{hd5CJaJh{CJaJhMECJaJhMEhd5CJaJh@7CJaJh,Rh@7CJaJhdCJaJhdCJOJQJ^JaJ hX6hFDCJOJQJ^JaJhX6hdOJQJ^JhX6hdCJaJhX6CJaJ'&&&&$'.'9'E'i'$Ifgd}rJ$a$gdX6i'j'u''''\VVVV$Ifkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la'''''(\SSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la(($(?(U((\SSSJ $IfgdS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
laK(T(((((((((((()))8)O)])^)e)m)n)))))))))))*G*H*Y*]*u*y******++-+1+H+K+a+b++++++++,,$,&,4,a,b,s,x,ййЭЭЭЭЭЭЭhMEh0oq5CJaJh{h0oq5CJaJh,Rh;#CJaJh0oqCJaJh;#CJaJh,RhdCJaJhdCJaJh{h;#5CJaJD((((())8)\VVVVVV$Ifkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la8)9)N)O)^)n))\VVVVV$Ifkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la))))))\SSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la))*H***\SSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la***+b++\SSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la++++%,&,\SSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la&,',4,b,,,\SSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
lax,,,,,,,,--*-0-H-N-d-e----------..2.3.X.........,/-///3/A////////////000090:0I0N0O0[0a0p0t000000!1"1ٹh,RhdCJH*aJhMEhGc5CJaJhGcCJaJh,RhdCJaJhdCJaJhMEh0oq5CJaJh0oqCJaJI,,,-e--\SSSS $Ifgd,Rkd
$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la----.3.\SSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la3.4.X...-/\SSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la-/./A/////\SSSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la//00:0O0a000\SSSSSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl9\ ,"
t0"644
la000"1O1z11\SSSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la"171N1O1W1X1a111111112222#2$2%2O2Z2o222222222222`3a3333344*4A4B4P4T4U45 5
555иа䰤а䰤Дh7rCJaJhd,CJaJhq6CJaJhMEhX65CJaJhX6CJaJh,Rhd>*CJaJh,RhdCJH*aJh,RhdCJaJhME5CJaJhdCJaJhMEhGc5CJaJhGcCJaJ511112$2%2\SSSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl\ ,"
t0"644
la%2&2o222222a33\SSSSSSSS $Ifgd,Rkd$$Ifl8\ ,"
t0"644
la 3334B4U44 5\SSSSJJ $Ifgdq6 $Ifgd,Rkd $$Ifl
\ ,"
t0"644
la 5
555D5p555\WNFFFF$a$gdh^hgd
>gd}rJkd $$Ifl6\ ,"
t0"644
la555555!5(575;5<5C5D5d5f5n5p5555555555566666<6=66666667¸{o{g{o{o{o{o{o{hMECJaJhMEh
5CJaJh
CJaJh
h
CJaJhMECJOJQJ^JaJh
CJOJQJ^JaJh
CJOJQJ^JaJhOJQJ^JhX6hOJQJ^JhCJaJhMECJaJhX6hCJaJh5CJaJhX6h5CJaJ(5555 6
666PD$$Ifa$gd
kd
$$Ifl\:,"
t0644
la $Ifgd}rJgd
6<6P6Q6R66666SG$$Ifa$gd
kdu
$$Ifll\:,"
t0644
la $Ifgd}rJ6677788?8UI$$Ifa$gd
kd
$$Ifl\:,"
t0644
la $Ifgd}rJ777R7777788 8>88888888J9999G:I:J:K:M:N:P:Q:S:T:V:W:]:^:_:a:b:h:i:n:o:p:r:s:t:ĺh|]0JmHnHuhkS
hkS0JjhkS0JUh C.jh C.Uh}rJCJaJhMEhq65CJaJhMEh
5CJaJh
CJaJh{CJaJ/?8@888888^RI@@@ $Ifgd
$IfgdS$$Ifa$gd
kd;$$Ifl\:,"
t0644
la8K9L9999H:UI@ $IfgdS$$Ifa$gd
kd$$Ifl\:,"
t0644
la $Ifgd}rJH:I:J:L:M:O:P:R:S:U:V:^YWWWWWWWWgd}rJkd$$Ifl\:,"
t0644
la
V:_:`:a:p:q:r:s:t:gd}rJh]hgd7&`#$gd=5091h:p7/ =!"#$%$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl9
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl8
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl
t"655
5$$If!vh55
55#v#v
#v:Vl6
t"655
5_$$If!vh5555#v:Vl
t65c$$If!vh5555#v:Vll
t65_$$If!vh5555#v:Vl
t65_$$If!vh5555#v:Vl
t65_$$If!vh5555#v:Vl
t65_$$If!vh5555#v:Vl
t65@@@NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@DDefault Paragraph FontRi@RTable Normal4
l4a(k@(No Listj@j-
Table Grid7:V04 @47Footer
!.)@.7Page Numbert2Tw<=Gm
+y kla,IJ$.9Eiju $ ? U !!8!9!N!O!^!n!!!!!!!!"H"""""#b#####%$&$'$4$b$$$$$%e%%%%%&3&4&X&&&-'.'A''''''((:(O(a(((((")O)z)))))*$*%*&*o******a++++,B,U,, -
---D-p------ .
...<.P.Q.R......///00?0@000000K1L1111H2I2J2L2M2O2P2R2S2U2V2_2`2a2p2q2r2u200000000000000 0 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0000 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0X00XX00AX00XX00AX00X00AX00X00AX00TYXX00X00@0@0X00TYXX00
A=Gm
u2X0 Vo@0X0@ 0@0@0@ 0@ 0@ 00 (((+#&K(x,"157t:!"$%&+3:?C&i''((8)))*+&,,-3.-//01%23 5566?88H:V:t:#'()*,-./012456789;<=>@ABDEFGs: $+!!&B!%,H((J2J2L2L2M2M2O2P2R2S2U2V2r2u2333333w $Ej $ ? U 9!!""##'$4$$$%%&X&.'A''')))&***-R...000011J2J2L2L2M2M2O2P2R2S2U2V2r2u2QVJ2J2L2L2M2M2O2P2R2S2U2V2r2u2eM=T zFZxB!q5\R{>(r0uOF,6pIL0wQ>~iqSr0hCb^]Tn$xVmh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@@^@`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@@^@`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh
^`o(hH.h^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@@^@`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`CJaJhH.h
^`hH.h
pLp^p`LhH.h
@@^@`hH.h
^`hH.h
L^`LhH.h
^`hH.h
^`hH.h
PLP^P`LhH.^`o(.
^`hH.
pLp^p`LhH.
@@^@`hH.
^`hH.
L^`LhH.
^`hH.
^`hH.
PLP^P`LhH.hh^h`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@@^@`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh88^8`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh ^ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHhxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHohHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh88^8`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh ^ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHhxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHohHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH^`5o(.^`5o(hH.
pLp^p`LhH.
@@^@`hH.
^`hH.
L^`LhH.
^`hH.
^`hH.
PLP^P`LhH.hh^h`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@@^@`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@@^@`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh88^8`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh ^ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHhxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHohHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH!q5ILuOF0wQn$xeMhCbxBiqS{>(z0 H"T ~3 %* B,yNMt"=J2
=(
G%d,S;#7'K'+ C.!/iP/ME~|E}rJ9"KUKgM,RjTiWToW1]eP]IbGcNjc2llq0oq)s:tw>xmx@z'Jt w$tygb7NiJF?U{7r2o
kS-
=0-SQWC|]d]'FD$.9Eiju $ ? U !8!9!N!O!n!!!!!!!!"H"""""#b#####%$&$'$4$b$$$$$%e%%%%%&3&4&X&&&-'.'A'''''(:(((((")z)))))$*%*&*o***+++,U, -
---- .
...<.P.Q.R....///00?0@0000K1L1111H2I2u2@VVVVt2@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3&z Arial?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1h;˦;˦
f*[*[4d12122QHX ?mx24PT Frequency Subcommittee of the PT Expert Committee
Dan Tholen
Dan Tholen<
Oh+'0( <H
ht
8PT Frequency Subcommittee of the PT Expert CommitteeDan TholenNormalDan Tholen2Microsoft Office Word@^в@ң#@A@A*՜.+,0<hp
$ Dan Tholen Statistical Consulting[12'5PT Frequency Subcommittee of the PT Expert CommitteeTitle
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F#AData
I1TableQZWordDocument7SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq
FMicrosoft Office Word Document
MSWordDocWord.Document.89q