Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of uncertainty estimates as reported by participants in proficiency testing for the evaluation of their results: pros and cons

  • Practitioner's Report
  • Published:
Accreditation and Quality Assurance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to study the measurement uncertainties reported in proficiency tests (PTs) using examples from PTs in the environmental sector and to compare the obtained measurement uncertainty estimates using different approaches. In addition, the paper focusses on the differences between the z-score and the zeta score. Since the year 2000, the Finnish Environment Institute has asked participants to report analytical methods as well as measurement uncertainties in connection with PT results. The measurement uncertainties of the assigned value have also been evaluated. On the basis of the results, the measurement uncertainties reported by the participants varied greatly. Participants often reported underestimated measurement uncertainties, but overestimated uncertainties were also reported. At the moment, it seems as if performance assessment should be based on the z-score because of a number of significant over- and underestimated measurement uncertainties. The zeta score should be used for information and educational purposes mainly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2a–c
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. ISO/IEC Guide 43-1 (1997) Proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons—part 1. Development and operation of proficiency testing schemes

  2. Thompson M, Ellison SLR, Wood R (2006) The international harmonized protocol for the proficiency testing of analytical chemistry laboratories. IUPAC technical report. Pure Appl Chem 78(1):145–196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. EUROLAB Technical Report no. 1/2007 (2007) Measurement uncertainty revisited: alternative approaches to uncertainty evaluation. Available online at: http://www.eurolab.org/docs/technical%20report/Technical_Report_Measurement_Uncertainty_2007.pdf

  4. ISO (1995) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, 1st corrected edn. ISO, Geneva. ISBN 92-67-10188-9

  5. EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG 4 (2000) Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, 2nd edn. EURACHEM. Available online at: http://www.eurachem.org/guides/QUAM2000-1.pdf

  6. NORDTEST Technical Report 537 (2004) Handbook for calculation of measurement uncertainty in environmental laboratories, 2nd edn. NORDTEST. Available online at: http://www.nordicinnovation.net/nordtestfiler/tec537.pdf

  7. EUROLAB (2002) Measurement uncertainty in testing. A short introduction on how to characterise accuracy and reliability of results including a list of useful references. Technical report no. 1/2002, June 2002. Available online at: http://www.eurolab.org/docs/el_11-01_02_7871.pdf

  8. ISO 13528 (2005) Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Hakuninmaantie 6, 00430, Helsinki, Finland

    Irma Mäkinen

Authors
  1. Irma Mäkinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irma Mäkinen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mäkinen, I. Use of uncertainty estimates as reported by participants in proficiency testing for the evaluation of their results: pros and cons. Accred Qual Assur 14, 35–41 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-008-0462-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-008-0462-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation