Abstract
Implementation of a measurement method or measurement system can be regarded as being situated—at the point of ‘measurement’—about halfway round the quality loop shown in Fig. 2.1.
It is recommended to perform calibration and metrological confirmation prior to embarking on more extensive series of measurements in ‘production’. The confirmation process will be described in Sect. 4.2.
The evaluation of measurement uncertainty is a key step, both in the metrological confirmation process and in subsequent measurements and decision-making, and will be reviewed in Sects. 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 for physical and social measurements, respectively.
How the concepts of calibration and traceability (introduced in Chap. 3) are regarded when performing measurement in the different disciplines, such as physics, engineering, chemistry and the social sciences, will be reviewed in Sects. 4.3. Section 4.4 will look in depth at metrological concepts in the social sciences.
Examples of the results of actually performing measurement spanning the physical and social sciences will round off this chapter (Sect. 4.5) to illustrate treatment of the results of implementing a measurement method or system, including a continuation of the example of pre-packaged goods chosen in this book. As before, templates are provided for the reader to complete the corresponding sections of the measurement task for their chosen case.
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.
Plus eventual correlation terms among the different sources of uncertainty.
- 2.
Not to be confused with instrument sensitivity K.
- 3.
In principle since the raw response data do not in general lie on a quantitative interval scale, these differences have no meaning. But the assumption is that only small differences between observed and fitted values are examined, in which case uncertainties in scaling are in most cases negligibly small. See chap. 5 for more discussion.
References
D. Andrich, A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 43, 561–573 (1978)
E. Bashkansky, S. Dror, R. Ravid, P. Grabov, Effectiveness of a product quality classifier. Qual. Eng. 19(3), 235–244 (2007)
BCR, Improvements and harmonization in applied metrology. in EUR 9922, Community bureau of reference, DG science, research & development. Commission of the European Communities, ed. by H. Marchandise (1985)
J.P. Bentley, Principles of Measurement Systems, 4th edn. (Pearson\Prentice-Hall, London\Upper Saddle River, 2004). ISBN-13: 978-0130430281, ISBN-10: 0130430285
L. Brillouin, Science and information theory, in Physics Today, vol. 15, 2nd edn., (Academic Press, Melville, 1962). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3057866
F.R. Camargo, B. Henson, Beyond usability: Designing for consumers’ product experience using the Rasch model. J. Eng. Des. 26, 121–139 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2015.1034254
S.J. Cano, J. Melin, L.R. Pendrill and The EMPIR NeuroMET 15HLT04 Consortium, Towards patient-centred cognition metrics, in Joint IMEKO TC1-TC7-TC13-TC18 Symposium: “The future glimmers long before it comes to be”, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2–5 July 2019 (2019)
P.H. Charlet, A. Marschal, Benefits of the implementation of a metrological structure for water analyses. Accreditation and Quality Assurance – Journal for Quality, Reliability and Comparability in Chemical Measurement 8, 467–474 (2003)
E.N. Dzhafarov, Mathematical foundations of universal Fechnerian scaling, in Theory and Methods of Measurements with Persons, ed. by B. Berglund, G. B. Rossi, J. Townsend, L. R. Pendrill, (Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis, Milton Park, 2011)
EA-4/16, Guideline on the Expression of Uncertainty in Quantitative Testing (EA, Organisation for European Accreditation, Berlin, 2003)
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)
EURACHEM/CITAC, Traceability in Chemical Measurement—A Guide to Achieving Comparable Results in Chemical Measurement (Eurachem/CITAC, Lisbon, 2003)
M. Golze, Why do we need traceability and uncertainty evaluation of measurement and test results? ACQUAL 8, 539–540 (2003)
G. Gooday, The values of precision, ed. M. Norton Wise, Princeton University Press (1995) ISBN 0-691-03759-0
J.P. Guilford, Psychometric Methods (McGraw-Hill, Inc, New York, 1936), pp. 1–19
D.J. Hand, Measurement – A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, New York, 2016)., ISBN 978-0-19-877956-8
J. Hannig, C.M. Wang, H.K. Iyer, Uncertainty calculation for the ratio of dependent measurements. Metrologia 40, 177–183 (2003)
S.M. Humphry, The role of the unit in physics and psychometrics. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 9(1), 1–24 (2011)
ISO 10012, Measurement Management Systems – Requirements for Measurement Processes and Measuring Equipment (International Standardisation Organisation, Geneva, 2003)
ISO 5725, Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results — Part 1: General Principles and Definitions, ISO 5725-1:1994(en) (International Standardisation Organisation, Geneva, 1994). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-1:v1:en:sec:A
ISO/IEC 17043, Conformity Assessment - General Requirements for Proficiency Testing (International Standardisation Organisation, Geneva, 2010)
S. Ivarsson, B. Johansson, H. Källgren, L.R. Pendrill, Calibration of Submultiples of the Kilogram (SP Report 1989:32 National Testing Institute, Borås, 1989)
G. Iverson, R.D. Luce, “The representational measurement approach to psychophysical and judgmental problems”, chapter 1, in Measurement, Judgment, and Decision Making, (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1998)
JCGM 100, Evaluation of Measurement Data – Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM 1995 with Minor Corrections) (Joint Committee on Guides in Metrology (JCGM), Sèvres, 2008)
H. Källgren, M. Lauwaars, B. Magnusson, L. Pendrill, P. Taylor, Role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment in legal metrology and trade, Accreditation and Quality Assurance – Journal for Quality, Reliability and Comparability in Chemical Measurement, 8, 541–7 (2003)
B. King, Metrology and analytical chemistry: Bridging the cultural gap. Metrologia 34, 41–46 (1997)
B. King, Meeting ISO/IEC 17025 traceability requirements. Accred. Qual. Assur. 8, 380–382 (2003)
K. Koffka, Principles of Gestalt Psychology (Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1935)
P.M. Kruyen, W.H.M. Emons, K. Sijtsma, Test length and decision quality in personnel selection: When is short too short? Int. J. Test. 12, 321–344 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2011.643517
S. Kullback, R. Leibler, On information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Statist. 22, 79–86 (1951). https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729694
J. M. Linacre, Bernoulli Trials, Fisher Information, Shannon Information and Rasch, Rasch Measurement Transactions 20:3 1062–3 (2006), https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt203a.htm
J. Linacre, Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas. Trans. 7(4), 328 (1994)
J. M. Linacre, W. P. Fisher, Jr, Harvey Goldstein’s objections to Rasch measurement: a response from Linacre, Fisher, Rasch Meas. Trans., 26:3 1383–9 (2012)
G.N. Masters, A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 47, 149–174 (1982)
H.U. Mittmann, M. Golze, A. Schmidt, Accreditation in global trade, ILAC and IAF joint conference on 23–24 September 2002, Berlin, Germany. ACQUAL 8, 315–316 (2003)
J. Moberg, C. Gooskens, J. Nerbonne, N. Vaillette, Conditional entropy measures intelligibility among related languages, in Proceedings of the 17th Meeting of Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands, (LOT, Utrecht, 2007). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/296747/bookpart.pdf?sequence=2
D.C. Montgomery, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (Wiley, Hoboken, 1996). ISBN: 0-471-30353-4
J. Nerbonne, W. Heering, P. Kleiweg, Edit distance and dialect proximity, in Introduction to reissue edition, Time Warps, String Edits and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison, ed. by D. Sankoff, J. Kruskal, (CSLI, Stanford, 1999).
L.R. Pendrill, Discrete ordinal & interval scaling and psychometrics, in Métrologie 2013 Congress, (CFM, Paris, 2013)
L. R. Pendrill, Meeting future needs for Metrological Traceability – A physicist’s view, Accreditation and Quality Assurance – Journal for Quality, Reliability and Comparability in Chemical Measurement, 10, 133–9, http://www.springerlink.com/content/0dn6x90cmr8hq3v4/?p=2338bc01ade44a208a2d8fb148ecd37aπ (2005)
L.R. Pendrill, Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making & conformity assessment, Metrologia, 51: S206 (2014)
L.R. Pendrill, Assuring measurement quality in person-centred healthcare. Meas. Sci. Technol 29(3), 034003 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/aa9cd2
L.R. Pendrill, W.P. Fisher Jr., Counting and quantification: Comparing psychometric and metrological perspectives on visual perceptions of number. Measurement 71, 46–55 (2015)
Z. Pizlo, Symmetry provides a Turing-type test for 3D vision, in Mathematical Models of Perception and Cognition, ed. by J. W. Houpt, L. M. Blabla, vol. 1, (Routledge, Abingdon, 2016). ISBN 978-1-315-64727-2
R. Pradel, T. Steiger, H. Klich, Availability of reference materials: COMAR the database for certified reference materials. Accred. Qual. Assur. 8, 317–318 (2003)
G. Rasch, On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology, 321–334 in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, IV. Berkeley: University of California Press. Available free from Project Euclid (1961)
J.F. Reynolds, Estimating the standard deviation of a normal distribution. Math. Gaz. 71, 60–62 (1987). https://doi.org/10.2307/3616296. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3616296
G. B. Rossi, Measurement and Probability – A Probabilistic Theory of Measurement with Applications, Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology, Springer Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8825-0 (2014)
K.-D. Sommer, M. Kochsiek, Role of measurement uncertainty in deciding conformance in legal metrology. OIML Bull. XLIII, 19–24 (2002)
K.-D. Sommer, B.R.L. Siebert, Systematic approach to the modelling of measurements for uncertainty evaluation. Metrologia 43, S200–S210 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/0026.1394/43/4/S06
C. Spearman, The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 15, 72–101 (1904)
C. Spearman, Correlation calculated from faulty data. Br. J. Psychol. 3, 271–295 (1910)
J. Stenner, M. Smith, Testing construct theories. Percept. Mot. Skills 55, 415–426 (1982). https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1982.55.2.415
P. Tarka, Construction of the measurement scale for consumer’s attitudes in the frame of one-parametric Rasch model, in Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Œconomica, vol. 286, (2013), pp. 333–340. http://dspace.uni.lodz.pl:8080/xmlui/handle/11089/10321?locale-attribute=en
L.L. Thurstone, The stimulus-response fallacy in psychology. Psychol. Rev. 30, 354–369 (1923)
P. van der Helm, Simplicity versus likelihood in visual perception: From surprisals to precisals. Psychol. Bull. 126, 770–800 (2000)
B.D. Wright, Comparing factor analysis and Rasch measurement. Rasch Meas. Trans. 8(1), 3–24 (1994)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Exercises 4: Presentation of Measurement Results
Exercises 4: Presentation of Measurement Results
4.1.1 E4.1 Measurement System Analysis
Choose any measurement situation: It can be measurements of the product you have chosen | Your answers………………………………………… |
|---|---|
Make a summarising measurement system analysis: | |
• Identify the principal elements of the measurement system (object, instrument, operator, etc.) | |
• Draw an Ishikawa diagram of the measurement system | |
• Establish a measurement error budget | |
Others: |
4.1.2 E4.2 Expression of Measurement Uncertainty
With your measurement data (possibly simulated) got from the measurement situation you chose in §4.1: | Your answers………………………………………… |
|---|---|
• Calculate the mean and standard deviation in each case you have repeated measurement values for a quantity | |
• Correct each mean for known measurement errors | |
• Express a standard measurement uncertainty for each source of measurement error: | |
– Type-A evaluation for repeated measurements | |
– Type-B evaluation in other cases | |
– Combine the various standard measurement uncertainties | |
– Calculate an expanded measurement uncertainty. Quote the coverage factor you have chosen | |
Others: |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pendrill, L. (2019). Measurement. In: Quality Assured Measurement. Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28695-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28695-8_4
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)