“Decisions” vs “conclusions”
- Paul De Bièvre
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
It seems to have escaped many people who are involved in measurement, that ultimately accepting a measurement result (which consists of a quantity value with an associated measurement uncertainty) is a matter of decision rather than an automatic acceptance by the analyst of numbers.
Let us have a closer look at this.
In a typical traditional approach, one may have gathered a lot of evidence through earlier measurements to be confident that a result will lie in a certain range, expresses by a confidence interval with which even a quantified probability can be associated. This eventually leads to stating a result as a value with a confidence interval of, say, 95% probability.
Such a statement is said to imply that if another series of 20 measurements is carried out under similar circumstances, one of them would yield a result which lies outside the confidence interval just described.
Is this useful?
Yes and no.
Looked at “a posteriori”, i.e. after the measurement, confidence intervals describe
- “Decisions” vs “conclusions”
Accreditation and Quality Assurance
Volume 9, Issue 8 , pp 439-440
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Paul De Bièvre (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, European Commission-JRC, 2240, Geel, Belgium