Abstract
Achieving quality-assured measurement is particularly challenging when measurements are to be done over a wider scope, in terms of scale (large and small, ranging from cosmological to nanoscales) as well as including more qualitative properties when tackling quality-assured measurement across the social and physical sciences.
When embarking on a description of measurement in such challenging circumstances, it will be beneficial to exploit opportunities of observing that the measurement process is a specific example and subset of a production process, where the “product” in this special case is the “measurement result”. In the present chapter, obvious analogies will be drawn between designing production of entities—described in Chap. 1—and designing measurement systems for experiments.
A quality-assurance loop in the special case where the “product” is a measurement. This measurement quality loop will provide the structure for basically the rest of the book. The present chapter—the first in this book to address predominantly measurement rather than product—will cover, so to say, the first quarter of the ‘clock’ of the loop, where the client issue of product demands is interpreted in terms of the corresponding measurement requirements. Modelling of a measurement system will be an important step (Sects. 2.2 and 2.4), as well as advice on designing experiments and measurement methods (Sect. 2.3) and finally validating and verifying them (Sect. 2.5). The chapter concludes with a couple of case studies before the reader is encouraged to continue their chosen example.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Where the distinction is important, a quantity is denoted with a capital letter, e.g. Z, while a lowercase letter, e.g. z, is used to denote the quantity value resulting from a measurement of that quantity.
- 2.
‘etalon’: a French word usefully distinguishing a measurement standard from a written standard (norm).
- 3.
The ILC set-up, including circulating object, pilot laboratory and other participants, with their respective measurement resources, can of course be regarded collectively as one measurement system.
References
AIAG, Measurement systems analysis reference manual, in Chrysler, Ford, General Motors Supplier Quality Requirements Task Force, (Automotive Industry Action Group, Michigan, 2002)
T. Akkerhuis, J. de Mast, T. Erdmann, The statistical evaluation of binary test without gold standard: robustness of latent variable approaches. Measurement 95, 473–479 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.10.043
ASTM, Standard Guide for Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA) E2782. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1520/E2782-11
E. Bashkansky, T. Gadrich, Mathematical and computational aspects of treatment ordinal results, in AMCTM IV, Series on Advances in Mathematics for Applied Sciences, vol. 84, (World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd, Singapore, 2012). ISBN-10 981-4397-94-6
E. Bashkansky, T. Gadrich, I. Kuselman, Interlaboratory comparison of test results of an ordinal or nominal binary property: analysis of variation. Accred. Qual. Assur. 17, 239–243 (2012)
J.P. Bentley, Principles of Measurement Systems, 4th edn. (Pearson Education Limited, London, 2005)
B. Berglund, G. B. Rossi, J. T. Townsend, L. R. Pendrill (eds.), Measurement With Persons: Theory, Methods, and Implementation Areas (Psychology Press, Scientific Psychology Series, London, 2011). Published: December 2011 ISBN: 978-1-84872-939-1
E. Bergstrand, Recent Developments and Techniques in the Maintenance of Standards (HMSO, London, 1952). Ann. Fr. Chronom. 11, 97. ibid. 1957
CIPM MRA, International Equivalence of Measurements: The CIPM MRA. (1999), https://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra/
J.A. Cohen, A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol. Meas. 20, 37–46 (1960)
EU Commission, Directive 2014/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the Harmonisation of the Laws of the Member States Relating to the Making Available on the Market of Measuring Instruments (2014)
EU Commission, Conformity Assessment. (2018), https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-blocks/conformity-assessment_en
A. Gillespie, F. Cornish, Intersubjectivity: towards a dialogical analysis. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 40, 19–46 (2010)
J.P. Guilford, Psychometric Methods (McGraw-Hill, Inc, New York, 1936), pp. 1–19
S.M. Humphry, The role of the unit in physics and psychometrics. Meas. Interdisciplinary Res. Perspect. 9(1), 1–24 (2011)
ISO 10012:2003 Measurement management systems -- Requirements for measurement processes and measuring equipment, ISO
ISO 11095:1996 Linear calibration using reference materials
ISO 5725:1995 Accuracy – trueness and precision, in 6 parts
ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems — Requirements, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9001:ed-5:v1:en
ISO Guide 33:2015 Reference materials -- Good practice in using reference materials
ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html
G. Iverson, R. Luce, The representational measurement approach to psychophysical and judgmental problems, in Measurement, Judgment, and Decision Making, (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1998)
JCGM 100:2008 Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM 1995 with minor corrections) in Joint Committee on Guides in Metrology (JCGM)
JCGM 106:2012, “Evaluation of measurement data – The role of measurement uncertainty in Conformity Assessment”, in Joint Committee on Guides in Metrology (JCGM)
JCGM 200:2012 International vocabulary of metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM 3rd edition) (JCGM 200:2008 with minor corrections) WG2 Joint Committee on Guides in Metrology (JCGM) (Sevrès: BIPM)
H. Källgren and L.R. Pendrill, Exhaust gas analysers and optimised sampling, uncertainties and costs, Accreditation and Quality Assurance – Journal for Quality, Reliability and Comparability in Chemical Measurement. 11, 496–505, (2006) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-006-0163-3
A. Kohlhase, M. Kohlhase, Semantic knowledge management for education. Proc. IEEE 96, 970–989 (2008)
J.M. Linacre, Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J. Appl. Meas. 3(1), 85–106 (2002)
P. Loftus, S. Giudice, Relevance of methods and standards for the assessment of measurement system performance in a high-value manufacturing industry. Metrologia 51, S219–S227 (2014)
J. McGrane, Stevens’ forgotten crossroads: the divergent measurement traditions in the physical and psychological sciences from the mid-twentieth century. Front. Psychol. Hypothesis Theory 6, 1–8 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00431. art. 431
D.C. Montgomery, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (Wiley, Hoboken, 1996). ISBN: 0-471-30353-4
G. Nilsson, private communication (1995)
G Nordin, R Dybkaer, U Forsum, X Fuentes-Arderiu and F Pontet, Vocabulary on nominal property, examination, and related concepts for clinical laboratory sciences (IFCC-IUPAC recommendations 2017), Pure Appl. Chem. 90(5): 913– 935, (2018)
I. Partchev, A visual guide to item response theory (Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, 2004). https://www.coursehero.com/file/28232270/Partchev-VisualIRTpdf/
L R Pendrill, Meeting future needs for metrological traceability – a physicist’s view – Accred. Qual. Assur. J. Qual. Reliab. Comparability Chem. Meas., 10, 133–9. (2005). http://www.springerlink.com/content/0dn6x90cmr8hq3v4/?p=2338bc01ade44a208a2d8fb148ecd37api
L.R. Pendrill, “El ser humano como instrument de medida”. e-medida. (2014a)
L.R. Pendrill, Man as a measurement instrument. NCSLI Meas. J. Meas. Sci. 9, 24–35 (2014b)
L.R. Pendrill, Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making & conformity assessment. Metrologia 51, S206 (2014c)
L.R. Pendrill, Assuring measurement quality in person-centred healthcare. Measurement Science & Technology 29, 034003 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/aa9cd2. special issue Metrologie 2017
B.W. Petley, The Fundamental Physical Constants and the Frontier of Measurement (Adam Hilger Ltd, Bristol, 1985). ISBN 0-85274-427-7
K.E. Roach, Measurement of health outcomes: reliability, validity and responsiveness. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 18, 8 (2006)
G.B. Rossi, Measurement and Probability – A Probabilistic Theory of Measurement with Applications, Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology (Springer, Dordrecht, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8825-0
G.B. Rossi, F. Crenna, “Toward a formal theory of the measuring system”, IMEKO2016 TC1-TC7-TC13. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 772, 012010 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/772/1/012010
M. Thompson, T. Fearn, What exactly is fitness for purpose in analytical measurement? Analyst 121, 275–278 (1996)
S. Uhlig, S. Krügener, P. Gowik, A new profile likelihood confidence interval for the mean probability of detection in collaborative studies of binary test methods. Accred. Qual. Assur. 18, 367–372 (2013)
M. Wenemark, Questionnaire Methodology with a Focus on the Respondent (in Swedish) (Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2017). ISBN 978-91-44-09641-4
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Exercise 2 Definition of Measurement Problem
Exercise 2 Definition of Measurement Problem
2.1.1 E2.1 Demands on Measurement System and Methods, Based on Product Demands §E1.2:
Your answers……………………………… | |
|---|---|
For as many as possible of each product test (A, B, C, D) under §E1.3, specify demands on measurement system and methods: | – |
– Minimum production capability (Cp,min)? | – |
– Minimum measurement capability (Cm,min)? | – |
– Maximum permissible measurement uncertainty (MPU)? | – |
– Maximum permissible measurement (MPE of instrument/system)? | – |
Other demands: | – |
2.1.2 E2.2 Non-functional Characteristics of Appropriate Measurement System, Based in Test Demands §E1.3 & §E2.1:
For each type of test (A non-functional; B functional) below, choose a measurement system than can be used to test product—Please attach a specification sheet or other description of each measurement system. | Your answers ……………………………………… |
|---|---|
A Test of product non-functional characteristics. Does the product work ‘correctly’?—Describe the functional aspects of the chosen measurement system: | – |
– Describe the non-functional characteristics | – |
– Describe test of these functional characteristics of the measurement instrument | – |
– What does each instrument test cost? | – |
B Test of product function. Is the product ‘right’?—Describe the chosen measurement system: | – |
– Describe the functional characteristics (range, swing, non-linearity, sensitivity, etc.) of the measurement system according to the instrument manufacturer or other specification | – |
– Describe test of these functional characteristics of the measurement instrument. Evaluate: O = K·I + N(I) + KM·IM·I + Ki·Ii + b | – |
– What does each instrument test cost? | – |
Others: | – |
2.1.3 E2.3 Functional Characteristics of Appropriate Measurement Systems, Based on Test Demands §E1.3 & §E2.1:
For at least one of the chosen measurement systems (for the A non-functional or B functional product tests), give a description of the functional characteristics of the measurement system: | Your answers ………………………………………… |
|---|---|
A Test of product non-functional characteristics. Does the product work ‘correctly’?—Describe the chosen measurement system: | – |
– Describe how the measurement system is built up in terms of elements such as: sensor—signal conversion—signal conditioning—data conditioning, according to the instrument manufacturer or other specification | – |
– Model how errors in measurement signals are propagated through the measurement instrument. Evaluate: O = K·I + N(I) + KM·IM·I + Ki·Ii + b for each element of each measurement instrument element and for the complete measurement system | – |
– What does each instrument test cost? | – |
Others: | – |
B Test of product function. Is the product ‘right’?—Describe the chosen measurement system: | – |
– Describe how the measurement system is built up in terms of elements such as: sensor—signal conversion—signal conditioning—data conditioning, according to the instrument manufacturer or other specification | – |
– Model how errors in measurement signals are propagated through the measurement instrument. Evaluate: O = K·I + N(I) + KM·IM·I + Ki·Ii + b for each element of each measurement instrument element and for the complete measurement system | – |
– What does each instrument test cost? | – |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pendrill, L. (2019). Measurement Method/System Development. In: Quality Assured Measurement. Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28695-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28695-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28694-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28695-8
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)