Can the usual validation standard series for quantitative methods, ISO 5725, be also applied for qualitative methods?

  • Steffen UhligEmail author
  • Ludwig Niewöhner
  • Petra Gowik
General Paper


Repeatability standard deviation, laboratory standard deviation, and reproducibility standard deviation for quantitative methods according to ISO 5725 series were recently proposed to estimate the precision of qualitative measurements, giving a presence/absence response. In this paper, it is shown that for qualitative methods, the reproducibility standard deviation across laboratories does not reflect the performance of the method as suggested. It is demonstrated that the benefit of the respective laboratory standard deviation is very limited. Alternative performance measures are introduced which are based on another approach also directly linked to ISO 5725. Thereby, meaningful information about the precision of qualitative test methods can be achieved.


Qualitative methods Quantitative methods ISO 5725 Reproducibility standard deviation Repeatability standard deviation Laboratory standard deviation Probability of detection response curve 


  1. 1.
    Wilrich P-Th (2010) The determination of precision of qualitative measurement methods by interlaboratory experiments. Accred Qual Assur 15:439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wehling P, LaBudde RA, Brunelle SL, Nelson MT (2011) Probability of Detection (POD) as a statistical model for the validation of qualitative methods. J AOAC Int 94(1):335–347Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO 5725-1:2003 (2003): Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—part 1: general principles and definitionsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO 5725-2:2003 (2003) Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—part 2: basic method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement methodGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Niewöhner L, Andrasko J, Biegstraaten J, Uhlig S, Gunaratnam L, Steffen S (2005) Maintenance of the ENFSI proficiency test program on identification of GSR by SEM/EDX (GSR2003). J Forensic Sci 50(4):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Niewöhner L, Andrasko J, Biegstraaten J, Gunaratnam L, Steffen S, Uhlig S, Antoni S (2008) GSR2005—continuity of the ENFSI proficiency test on identification of GSR by SEM/EDX. J Forensic Sci 53(1):162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schilling P, Powilleit M, Uhlig S (2006) Macrozoobenthos interlaboratory comparison on taxonomical identification and counting of marine invertebrates in artificial sediment samples including testing various statistical methods of data evaluation. Accred Quality Assur 11(8, 9):422–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jülicher B, Gowik P, Uhlig S (1998) Assessment of detection methods in trace analysis by means of a statistically based in-house validation concept. Analyst 123:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jülicher B, Gowik P, Uhlig S (1999) A top-down in-house validation based approach for the investigation of the measurement uncertainty using fractional factorial experiments. Analyst 124:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Commission (2002) Commission Decision 2002/657/EC of 12 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results. Off J Eur Commun L221:8–36Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.quo dataMunich-FreisingGermany
  2. 2.Federal Criminal Police OfficeWiesbadenGermany
  3. 3.Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food SafetyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations