Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 235–241 | Cite as

From GUM to alternative methods for measurement uncertainty evaluation

  • Marc Priel
General Paper


Since the advent of the Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) in 1995 laying the principles of uncertainty evaluation numerous projects have been carried out to develop alternative practical methods that are easier to implement namely when it is impossible to model the measurement process for technical or economical aspects. In this paper, the author presents the recent evolution of measurement uncertainty evaluation methods. The evaluation of measurement uncertainty can be presented according to two axes based on intralaboratory and interlaboratory approaches. The intralaboratory approach includes “the modelling approach” (application of the procedure described in section 8 of the GUM, known as GUM uncertainty framework) and “the single laboratory validation approach”. The interlaboratory approaches are based on collaborative studies and they are respectively named “interlaboratory validation approach” and “proficiency testing approach”.


Measurement uncertainty Proficiency testing Internal quality control External Quality Assessment Scheme (EQAS) Uncertainty in biological analysis 



The author gratefully acknowledges the kind cooperation of Dr. Jacques De Graeve from CHU de Rangueil (Toulouse) for the development of the uncertainty evaluation method for laboratory medicine.


  1. 1.
    Guide ISO 99:2007 International vocabulary of metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM), 3rd ednGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurementGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ILAC G8 1996 Guidelines on assessment and reporting of compliance with specification (based on measurements and tests in a laboratory)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ILAC G17/2002 Introducing the concept of uncertainty in testing in association with the application of the standard ISO /CEI 17025Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EA–4/16 (2004) Guidelines on the expression of uncertainty in quantitative testing. European Cooperation for AccreditationGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eurolab Technical Report No. 1/2007 Measurement uncertainty revisited: alternative approaches to uncertainty evaluationGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO 5725 Standard accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results, Part 1–6Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/CEI Guide 43 (1997) Development and operation of laboratory proficiency testingGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eurachem (1998) The fitness for purpose of analytical methods: a laboratory guide to method and related topics.
  10. 10.
    ISO/TS 21748 Guidance for the use of repeatability, reproducibility and trueness estimates in measurement uncertainty estimationGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thompson M, Ellison SLR, Wood R (2006) The international harmonized protocol for the proficiency testing of analytical chemistry (IUPAC technical report). Pure Appl Chem 78:145–196. doi: 10.1351/pac200678010145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisicaro P, Amarouche S, Lalere B, Labarraque G, Priel M (2008) Approaches to the uncertainty evaluation based on proficiency testing schemes in chemical measurements. Accred Qual Assur 13:361–366. doi: 10.1007/s00769-008-0402-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire National de Métrologie et d’EssaisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations