Abstract
We compare the approach to measure uncertainties proposed in ISO 5725 and GUM from a statistician point of view. In particular we give some warnings to the application of the expanded uncertainty introduced in GUM when the input variables are few and we report some considerations on the relevant role of the interactions among the input variables in the measurement equation as well as the role of statistical design of experiments to measure uncertainties.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The assumption of uncorrelation between B and E is not present in ISO 5725, but it is correctly reported in the Appendix A.2 “Collaborative study approach” of the ISO 21748:2004 [5].
Note that k should be 1.96 to guarantee exactly 0.95 if Y is supposed to be normally distributed.
References
Burdick RK, Borror CM, Montgomery DC (2003) J Qual Technol 35:342–354
ISO 5725 (1994) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1995) ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, Geneva, Switzerland
ISO/IEC 17025 (2005) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
ISO/TS 21748 (2004) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
Arri E, Cabiati F, D’Emilio S, Gonella L (1995) Measurement 16:51–57. doi:10.1016/0263-2241(95)00017-F
ISO/TS 21749 (2005) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
Turzeniecka D (1999) Metrologia 36:113–116. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/36/2/6
JCGM 101 (2008) Evaluation of measurement data—supplement 1 to the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement—propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method
Bich W, Cox MG, Harris PM (2006) Metrologia 43:161–166. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/43/4/S01
Coleman S, Greenfield T, Stewardson D, Montgomery DC (2008) Statistical practice in business and industry. Wiley, New York
Jurado JM, Alcàzar A (2005) Accred Qual Assur 10:373–381. doi:10.1007/s00769-005-0005-8
Tosello G, Gava A, Hansen HN, Lucchetta G, Guarise M (2007) In: Proceedings of ENBIS-DEINDE 2007 conference. Torino, Italy, 11–13 April 2007, pp 313–323
Kennet RS, Kennet DA (2008) Accred Qual Assur (to appear)
Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New York
Pavese F (2007) Accred Qual Assur 12:525–534. doi:10.1007/s00769-007-0303-4
Ellison SLR, Holcombe DG, Burns M (2001) Analyst (Lond) 126:199–210. doi:10.1039/b008099n
Burdick RK, Borror CM, Montgomery DC (2005) Design and analysis of gauge R&R studies. ASA-SIAM, Philadelphia
Thompson M (2008) Accred Qual Assur 13:479–482. doi:10.1007/s00769-008-0417-3
van der Veen AMH, Alink A (1998) Accred Qual Assur 3:20–26. doi:10.1007/s007690050177
Feinberg M, Laurentie M (2006) Accred Qual Assur 11:3–9. doi:10.1007/s00769-005-0081-9
Ellison SLR, Barwick VJ (1998) Analyst (Lond) 123:1387–1392. doi:10.1039/a706946d
Lyn JA, Ramsey MH, Damant AP, Wood R (2007) Analyst (Lond) 132:1231–1237. doi:10.1039/b709539m
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the reviewers for helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Papers published in this section do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Editors, the Editorial Board and the Publisher.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Deldossi, L., Zappa, D. ISO 5725 and GUM: comparison and comments. Accred Qual Assur 14, 159–166 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-008-0478-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-008-0478-3