No abstract

Taguchi method is a very popular offline quality design. However, it cannot solve the multi-response problem which occurs often in today's society. Research shows that the multiresponse problem is still an issue with the Taguchi method. Researchers have tried to find a series of theories and methods in seeking a combination of factors/levels to achieve the situation of optimal multi-response instead of using engineers' judgement to make a decision in the Taguchi method. In 1997, Su et al. submitted the multivariate method, and in 2000 Antony proposed principal component analysis (PCA), to solve this problem. But with the PCA method, there are still two main shortcomings. In this study, the weighted principal components (WPC) method is proposed to overcome these two shortcomings, and three cases in their papers will be illustrated and compared in the application of WPC method. The result shows that the WPC method offers significant improvements in quality.

No abstract

Looks at the Taguchi method, a traditional approach that seeks to obtain the best combination of factors with the lowest societal cost solution to achieve customer requirements, and also principal component analysis (PCA). States that the Taguchi method can only be used to optimize single response problems and not multi-response problems and that PCA, although it has been considered to solve multi-response problems, itself has shortcomings. Proposes a data envelopment analysis ranking (DEAR) approach as an effective means of optimizing the multiresponse problem. Includes a series of steps from the proposed approach which are capable of decreasing uncertainty caused by engineering judgement in the Taguchi method and overcoming the shortcomings of PCA. Concludes that the DEAR approach is more powerful for practical applications.

Objective: The study intended to use narrative medicine study for interdisciplinary collaboration to let medical and healthcare students have a chance to interact with one another and listen to patients’ stories to enhance students’ reflective thinking, communication, empathy, and narrative medicine writing skills. Methods: A fifteen-week quasi-experimental design was used to examine the learning outcomes of the intervention. Two groups of students were randomly assigned as the experimental group (33 students) and the control group (32 students). Before and after the intervention, both groups had to fill in a Reflective Thinking Scale for Healthcare Students and Providers (RTS-HSP), Patient–Healthcare Provider Communication Scale (P-HCS), Empathy Scale in Patient Care (ES-PC), and Analytic Narrative Medicine Writing Scoring Rubric (ANMWSR). Results: The findings showed that on the reflective thinking scale, experimental group students had significantly higher reflective thinking posttest scores in “reflective skepticism,” “empathetic reflection,” and “critical open-mindedness,” but not in “self-examination.” As for patient–healthcare provider communication, they had significantly higher posttest scores in all “perception of trust and receptivity,” “patient-centered information giving,” “rapport building,” and “facilitation of patient involvement” factors. As for empathy, they had significant higher posttest scores in “behavioral empathy” and “affective empathy,” but not in “intelligent empathy.” In narrative medical writing skills, they had significant higher posttest scores in the “attention → representation → affiliation,” “depth of reflection,” “focus and context structure,” and “ideas and elaboration” sections, but not in the “language and conventions” section. Conclusion: The findings suggest that narrative medicine is worth recommending for interdisciplinary collaboration for healthcare education.