Advertisement

Ensuring Traceability

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

Abstract

This chapter deals with traceability and comparability: the first of the two major hallmarks of metrology (quality-assured measurement). (The second hallmark—uncertainty—is covered in the final chapters of the book.)

Metrological traceability through calibration enables the measurement comparability needed, in one form or another, to ensure entity comparability in any of the many fields mentioned in the first lines of Chap.  1. The “Zanzibar” parable, illustrating the concept of measurement comparability, recalled in this chapter, captures the essence of the concept of trueness, that is, what defines being “on target” when making repeated measurements in the “bull’s eye” illustration of measurement accuracy. Examples of circular traceability in measurement are more common than one would hope.

Despite its importance, international consensus about traceability of measurement results—both conceptually and in implementation—has yet to be achieved in every field. Ever-increasing demands for comparability of measurement results needed for sustainable development in the widest sense require a common understanding of the basic concepts of traceability of measurement results at the global level, in both traditional and new areas of technology and societal concern.

The present chapter attempts to reach such a consensus by considering in depth the concept of traceability, in terms of calibration, measurement units and standards (etalons), symmetry, conservation laws and entropy, in a presentation founded on quantity calculus. While historically Physics has been the main arena in which these concepts have been developed, it is now timely to take a broader view encompassing even the social sciences, guided by philosophical considerations and even politics. At the same time as the International System of Units is under revision, with more emphasis on the fundamental constants of Physics in the various unit definitions, there is some fundamental re-appraisal needed to extend traceability to cover even the less quantitative properties typical of measurement in the social sciences and elsewhere.

Keywords

Traceability Comparability Zanzibar parable Circular traceability Measurement units Standards (etalons) Symmetry Conserved quantities Entropy Quantity calculus 

References

  1. J. Aitchison, The statistical analysis of compositional data. J. R. Stat. Soc. 44, 139–177 (1982)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Asril and I. Marais, (2011) Applying a Rasch Model Distractor Analysis. In: Cavanagh R.F., Waugh R.F. (eds) Applications of Rasch Measurement in Learning Environments Research. Advances in Learning Environments Research, vol 2. SensePublishers, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Barbic and S. Cano, The application of Rasch measurement theory to psychiatric clinical outcomes research, BJPsych Bulletin, 40, 243–244, https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.115.052290 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. F. Attneave, Informational aspects of visual perception. Psychol. Rev. 61, 183–193 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. H. Barlow, The exploitation of regularities in the environment by the brain. Behav. Brain Sci. 24, 602–607 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. J. Barrow, From Alpha to Omega (Jonathan Cape, London, 2002). ISBN 0224061356zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. E. Bashkansky, S. Dror, R. Ravid, P. Grabov, Effectiveness of a product quality classifier. Qual. Eng. 19(3), 235–244 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. J.P. Bentley, Principles of Measurement Systems, 4th edn. (Pearson, Prentice-Hall, Lebanon, 2004). ISBN-13: 978-0130430281, ISBN-10: 0130430285Google Scholar
  9. BIPM, On the Future Revision of the SI, (2018), https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/rev-si/
  10. M. Born, Atomic Physics, 8th edn. (Blackie & Son Ltd., London, 1972). 216.89027.6, ISBN-13: 978-0486659848, ISBN-10: 0486659844Google Scholar
  11. N.R. Campbell, Physics – The Elements (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1920)Google Scholar
  12. CGPM, SI Brochure: The International System of Units (SI), 9th edn. (2019), https://www.bipm. org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdfGoogle Scholar
  13. CGPM, On the revision of the International System of Units (SI), in Draft Resolution A – 26th meeting of the CGPM (13–16 November 2018), (2018), https://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/CGPM/Draft-Resolution-A-EN.pdf
  14. CODATA, Task Force on Fundamental Physical Constants, Committee on Data for Science and Technology (ICSU, Paris, 2004). http://www.codata.org/taskgroups/TGfundconst/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  15. G. Cohen-Tannoudji, Universal Constants in Physics (MCGRAW HILL HORIZONS OF SCIENCE SERIES), ISBN-13: 978-0070116511, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Limited (1993)Google Scholar
  16. P. de Bièvre, Traceability is not meant to reduce uncertainty. Accred. Qual. Assur. 8, 497 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. J. de Boer, On the history of quantity calculus and the international system. Metrologia 31, 405–429 (1994/5)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. K.G. Denbigh, J.S. Denbigh, Entropy in Relation to Incomplete Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985). ISBN 0 521 25677 1Google Scholar
  19. P.A.M. Dirac, The principles of quantum mechanics, in The International Series of Monographs on Physics, ed. by J. Birman et al., 4th edn., (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992)Google Scholar
  20. S. Ellison, T. Fearn, Characterising the performance of qualitative analytical methods: statistics and terminology. TRAC-Trend Anal. Chem. 24, 468–476 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. W.H. Emerson, On quantity calculus and units of measurement. Metrologia 45, 134–138 (2008)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  22. EN 15224:2012, Health care services – Quality management systems – Requirements based on EN ISO 9001:2008Google Scholar
  23. W.P. Fisher, Jr., Physical disability construct convergence across instruments: Towards a universal metric. Journal of Outcome Measurement 1(2), pp 87–113 (1997)Google Scholar
  24. R. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. I, (2013), http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S1
  25. D. Flater, Redressing grievances with the treatment of dimensionless quantities in SI. Measurement 109, 105–110 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R. Fleischmann, Einheiteninvariante Gröβengleichungen, Dimension. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht 12, 386–399 (1960)Google Scholar
  27. A. Gillespie, F. Cornish, Intersubjectivity: towards a dialogical analysis. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 40, 19–46 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. G. Gooday, in The Values of Precision, ed. by M. N. Wise, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995). ISBN 0-691-03759-0Google Scholar
  29. W. Hardcastle, Qualitative Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice (Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, 1998)Google Scholar
  30. S.M. Humphry, The role of the unit in physics and psychometrics. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 9(1), 1–24 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. S.M. Humphry, D. Andrich, Understanding the unit implicit in the Rasch model. J. Appl. Meas. 9, 249–264 (2008)Google Scholar
  32. R.J. Irwin, A psychophysical interpretation of Rasch’s psychometric principle of specific objectivity. Proc. Fechner Day 23, 1–6 (2007)Google Scholar
  33. JCGM200:2012 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
  34. H. Källgren, M. Lauwaars, B. Magnusson, L.R. Pendrill, P. Taylor, Role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment in legal metrology and trade. Accred. Qual. Assur. 8, 541–547 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. M. Kaltoft, M. Cunich, G. Salkeld, J. Dowie, Assessing decision quality in patient-centred care requires a preference-sensitive measure. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 19, 110–117 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819613511076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. G.J. Klir, T.A. Folger, Fuzzy sets, uncertainty and information (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1988). ISBN 0-13-345984-5zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. J. Kogan, An Alternative Path to a New SI, Part 1: On Quantities with Dimension One, (2014), https://web.archive.org/web/20160912224601/http://metrologybytes.net/PapersUnpub/Kogan_2014.pdf
  38. L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Mechanics, Course of Theoretical Physics (Butterworth-Heinenann, 1976), 3rd ed., Vol. 1. ISBN 0-7506-2896-0.Google Scholar
  39. B. Langefors, Essays on Infology, in Gothenburg Studies of Information Systems, ed. by B. Dahlbom. Report 5 (University of Göteborg, 1993)Google Scholar
  40. J.M. Linacre, B. Wright, The ‘length’ of a Logit. Rasch Meas. Trans. 3, 54–55 (1989)Google Scholar
  41. L. Marco-Ruiz, A. Budrionis, K.Y. Yigzaw, J.G. Bellika, Interoperability Mechanisms of Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Systematic Review, in Proceedings of the 14th Scandinavian Conference on Health Informatics, Gothenburg, Sweden, April 6–7, 2016, (2016). http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/122/ecp16122.pdf
  42. L. Mari, A. Maul, D. Torres Irribarra, M. Wilson, A metastructural understanding of measurement. J. Phys. Conf. Ser 772, 012009 (2016). IMEKO2016 TC1-TC7-TC13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. L. Mari, C.D. Ehrlich, L.R. Pendrill, Measurement units as quantities of objects or values of quantities: a discussion. Metrologia 55, 716 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1681-7575/aad8d8ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. A. Maul, D. Torres Irribarra, M. Wilson, On the philosophical foundations of psychological measurement. Measurement 79, 311–320 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. A. Maul. Rethinking traditional methods of survey validation, Measurement. Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 15(2), 51–56 (2017)Google Scholar
  46. P McCullagh, Regression models for ordinal data. J. Roy. Stat. Soc., 42: p. 109–42 (1980)Google Scholar
  47. A. Mencattini, L. Mari, A conceptual framework for concept definition in measurement: the case of ‘sensitivity. Measurement 72, 77–87 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. G.A. Miller, The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63, 81–97 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. F. Mosteller, J.W. Tukey, Data Analysis and Regression: A Second Course in Statistics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1977)Google Scholar
  50. MRA, International equivalence of measurements: the CIPM MRA, (1999), https://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra/
  51. R.R. Nelson, Physics envy: get over it. Iss. Sci. Technol. XXXI, 71–78 (2015). http://issues.org/31-3/physics-envy-get-over-it/Google Scholar
  52. J. Pearce, Psychometrics in action, science as practice. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 23, 653–663 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9789-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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. special issue Metrologie 2017.
  54. L.R. Pendrill, Some comments on fundamental constants and units of measurement related to precise measurements with trapped charged particles. Phys. Scripta T59, 46–52 (1994). (1995) and World Scientific Publishing, ed. I Bergström, C Carlberg & R Schuch, ISBN 981-02-2481-8 (1996)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  55. L.R. Pendrill, Macroscopic and microscopic polarisabilities of helium gas. J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 29, 3581–3586 (1996)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  56. L.R. Pendrill, Meeting future needs for metrological traceability – a physicist’s view. Accred. Qual. Assur. 10, 133–139 (2005). http://www.springerlink.com/content/0dn6x90cmr8hq3v4/?p=2338bc01ade44a208a2d8fb148ecd37a&piCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. L.R. Pendrill, Metrology: time for a new look at the physics of traceable measurement? Europhysics News 37, 22–25 (2006a).  https://doi.org/10.1051/epn:2006104ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. L.R. Pendrill, Optimised measurement uncertainty and decision-making when sampling by variables or by attribute. Measurement 39(9), 829–840 (2006b).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2006.04.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. L.R. Pendrill, Uncertainty & risks in decision-making in qualitative measurement, in AMCTM 2011 International Conference on Advanced Mathematical and Computational Tools in Metrology and Testing, Göteborg June 20–22 2011, (2011), http://www.sp.se/AMCTM2011
  60. L.R. Pendrill, Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making & conformity assessment. Metrologia 51, S206 (2014)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  61. K. Pesudovs, Item banking: a generational change in patient-reported outcome measurement. Optom. Vis. Sci. 87(4), 285–293 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181d408d7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. B.W. Petley, The fundamental physical constants and the frontier of measurement (Adam Hilger Ltd, Bristol, 1985). ISBN 0-85274-427-7Google Scholar
  63. B.W. Petley, Thirty years (or so) of the SI. Meas. Sci. Technol. 1, 1261 (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/1/11/023ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. T. J. Quinn, Metrology, its role in today’s world BIPM Rapport BIPM-94/5 (1994)Google Scholar
  65. A.P. Raposo, The Algebraic Structure of Quantity Calculus, (2016), arXiv:1611.01502v1Google Scholar
  66. G. Rasch, On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology, in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1961), pp. 321–334Google Scholar
  67. F.S. Roberts, Measurement theory with applications to decision-making, utility, and the social sciences, in Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 7, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985). ISBN 978-0-521-30227-2Google Scholar
  68. G.B. Rossi, Measurement and probability – a probabilistic theory of measurement with applications, in Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology, (2014),  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8825-0
  69. T.D. Schneider, G.D. Stormo, L. Gold, A. Ehrenfeuch, The information content of binding sites on nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Biol. 188, 415–431 (1986). www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/schneider1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. M.M. Schnore, J.T. Partington, Immediate memory for visual patterns: symmetry and amount of information. Psychon. Sci. 8, 421–422 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. C.E. Shannon, W.W.Weaver The mathematical theory of communications. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 117 p. (1963)Google Scholar
  72. 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/S06ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. A.J. Stenner, M. Smith III, D.S. Burdick, Toward a theory of construct definition. J. Educ. Meas. 20(4), 305–316 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. A.J. Stenner, W.P. Fisher Jr., M.H. Stone, D.S. Burdick, Causal Rasch models. Front. Psychol. 4(536), 1–14 (2013)Google Scholar
  75. S.S. Stevens, On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103(2684), 677–680 (1946). New SeriesCrossRefADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  76. L. Tsu, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 71 (Vintage Books (Random House), New York, 1972)Google Scholar
  77. J.A. Tukey, Chapter 8, Data analysis and behavioural science, in The Collected Works of John A Tukey, Volume III, Philosophy and Principles of Data Analysis: 1949 – 1964, ed. by L. V. Jones, (University North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  78. P.F. Velleman, L. Wilkinson, Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading. Am. Stat. 47, 65–72 (1993). https://www.cs.uic.edu/~wilkinson/Publications/stevens.pdfGoogle Scholar
  79. T. Vosk, Measurement uncertainty: requirement for admission of forensic science evidence, in Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, ed. by A. Jamieson, A. A. Moenssens, (Wiley, Chichester, 2015)Google Scholar
  80. J. Wallot, Dimensionen, Einheiten, Massysteme, in Handbuch der Physik II, Kap. I, (Springer, Berlin, 1926)Google Scholar
  81. W. Weaver, C. Shannon, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (University of Illinois Press, Champaign, 1963). ISBN 0252725484zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  82. E.D. Weinberger, A theory of pragmatic information and its application to the quasi-species model of biological evolution. Biosystems 66, 105–119 (2003). http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin.AO/0105030CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie Pendrill
    • 1
  1. 1.PartilleSweden

Personalised recommendations