Advertisement

Measurement Method/System Development

  • Leslie Pendrill
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology book series (SSMST)

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.

Keywords

Quality-assurance Measurement method Measurement system Development Product/measure analogies Quality loop Validation Verification Case studies 

References

  1. AIAG, Measurement systems analysis reference manual, in Chrysler, Ford, General Motors Supplier Quality Requirements Task Force, (Automotive Industry Action Group, Michigan, 2002)Google Scholar
  2. 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.2016.10.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM, Standard Guide for Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA) E2782. (2012),  https://doi.org/10.1520/E2782-11
  4. 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-10 981-4397-94-6Google Scholar
  5. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. J.P. Bentley, Principles of Measurement Systems, 4th edn. (Pearson Education Limited, London, 2005)Google Scholar
  7. 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: 978-1-84872-939-1Google Scholar
  8. E. Bergstrand, Recent Developments and Techniques in the Maintenance of Standards (HMSO, London, 1952). Ann. Fr. Chronom. 11, 97. ibid. 1957Google Scholar
  9. CIPM MRA, International Equivalence of Measurements: The CIPM MRA. (1999), https://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra/
  10. J.A. Cohen, A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol. Meas. 20, 37–46 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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)Google Scholar
  12. A. Gillespie, F. Cornish, Intersubjectivity: towards a dialogical analysis. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 40, 19–46 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. J.P. Guilford, Psychometric Methods (McGraw-Hill, Inc, New York, 1936), pp. 1–19Google Scholar
  14. S.M. Humphry, The role of the unit in physics and psychometrics. Meas. Interdisciplinary Res. Perspect. 9(1), 1–24 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO 10012:2003 Measurement management systems -- Requirements for measurement processes and measuring equipment, ISOGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 11095:1996 Linear calibration using reference materialsGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 5725:1995 Accuracy – trueness and precision, in 6 partsGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems — Requirements, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9001:ed-5:v1:en
  19. ISO Guide 33:2015 Reference materials -- Good practice in using reference materialsGoogle Scholar
  20. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html
  21. G. Iverson, R. Luce, The representational measurement approach to psychophysical and judgmental problems, in Measurement, Judgment, and Decision Making, (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1998)Google Scholar
  22. 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)Google Scholar
  23. JCGM 106:2012, “Evaluation of measurement data – The role of measurement uncertainty in Conformity Assessment”, in Joint Committee on Guides in Metrology (JCGM)Google Scholar
  24. 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)Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. A. Kohlhase, M. Kohlhase, Semantic knowledge management for education. Proc. IEEE 96, 970–989 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. J.M. Linacre, Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J. Appl. Meas. 3(1), 85–106 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 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)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. 431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. D.C. Montgomery, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (Wiley, Hoboken, 1996). ISBN: 0-471-30353-4zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. G. Nilsson, private communication (1995)Google Scholar
  32. 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)Google Scholar
  33. I. Partchev, A visual guide to item response theory (Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, 2004). https://www.coursehero.com/file/28232270/Partchev-VisualIRTpdf/Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. L.R. Pendrill, “El ser humano como instrument de medida”. e-medida. (2014a)Google Scholar
  36. L.R. Pendrill, Man as a measurement instrument. NCSLI Meas. J. Meas. Sci. 9, 24–35 (2014b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. L.R. Pendrill, Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making & conformity assessment. Metrologia 51, S206 (2014c)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 2017ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. B.W. Petley, The Fundamental Physical Constants and the Frontier of Measurement (Adam Hilger Ltd, Bristol, 1985). ISBN 0-85274-427-7Google Scholar
  40. K.E. Roach, Measurement of health outcomes: reliability, validity and responsiveness. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 18, 8 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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/10.1007/978-94-017-8825-0CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 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/10.1088/1742-6596/772/1/012010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. M. Thompson, T. Fearn, What exactly is fitness for purpose in analytical measurement? Analyst 121, 275–278 (1996)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. M. Wenemark, Questionnaire Methodology with a Focus on the Respondent (in Swedish) (Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2017). ISBN 978-91-44-09641-4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie Pendrill
    • 1
  1. 1.PartilleSweden

Personalised recommendations