The number of studies about control charts proposed to monitor profiles, where the quality of a process/product is expressed as function of response and explanatory variable(s), has been increasing in recent years. However, most authors assume that the in-control parameter values are known in phase II analysis and the error terms are normally distributed. These assumptions are rarely satisfied in practice. In this study, the performance of EWMA-R, EWMA-3, and EWMA-3(d(2)) methods for monitoring simple linear profiles is examined via simulation where the in-control parameters are estimated and innovations have a Student's t distribution or gamma distribution. Instead of the average run length (ARL) and the standard deviation of run length, we used average and standard deviation of the ARL as performance measures in order to capture the sampling variation among different practitioners. It is seen that the estimation effect becomes more severe when the number of phase I profiles used in estimation decreases, as expected, and as the distribution deviates from normality to a greater extent. Besides, although the average ARL values get closer to the desired values as the amount of phase I data increases, their standard deviations remain far away from the acceptable level indicating a high practitioner-to-practitioner variability.