Advertisement

Measurement

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

Abstract

Implementation of a measurement method or measurement system can be regarded as being situated—at the point of ‘measurement’—about halfway round the quality loop shown in Fig.  2.1.

It is recommended to perform calibration and metrological confirmation prior to embarking on more extensive series of measurements in ‘production’. The confirmation process will be described in Sect. 4.2.

The evaluation of measurement uncertainty is a key step, both in the metrological confirmation process and in subsequent measurements and decision-making, and will be reviewed in Sects. 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 for physical and social measurements, respectively.

How the concepts of calibration and traceability (introduced in Chap.  3) are regarded when performing measurement in the different disciplines, such as physics, engineering, chemistry and the social sciences, will be reviewed in Sects. 4.3. Section 4.4 will look in depth at metrological concepts in the social sciences.

Examples of the results of actually performing measurement spanning the physical and social sciences will round off this chapter (Sect. 4.5) to illustrate treatment of the results of implementing a measurement method or system, including a continuation of the example of pre-packaged goods chosen in this book. As before, templates are provided for the reader to complete the corresponding sections of the measurement task for their chosen case.

Keywords

Measurement Calibration Metrological confirmation Uncertainty evaluation Multi-disciplinary traceability Case studies 

References

  1. D. Andrich, A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 43, 561–573 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. E. Bashkansky, S. Dror, R. Ravid, P. Grabov, Effectiveness of a product quality classifier. Qual. Eng. 19(3), 235–244 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BCR, Improvements and harmonization in applied metrology. in EUR 9922, Community bureau of reference, DG science, research & development. Commission of the European Communities, ed. by H. Marchandise (1985)Google Scholar
  4. J.P. Bentley, Principles of Measurement Systems, 4th edn. (Pearson\Prentice-Hall, London\Upper Saddle River, 2004). ISBN-13: 978-0130430281, ISBN-10: 0130430285Google Scholar
  5. L. Brillouin, Science and information theory, in Physics Today, vol. 15, 2nd edn., (Academic Press, Melville, 1962).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3057866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. F.R. Camargo, B. Henson, Beyond usability: Designing for consumers’ product experience using the Rasch model. J. Eng. Des. 26, 121–139 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2015.1034254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. S.J. Cano, J. Melin, L.R. Pendrill and The EMPIR NeuroMET 15HLT04 Consortium, Towards patient-centred cognition metrics, in Joint IMEKO TC1-TC7-TC13-TC18 Symposium: “The future glimmers long before it comes to be”, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2–5 July 2019 (2019)Google Scholar
  8. P.H. Charlet, A. Marschal, Benefits of the implementation of a metrological structure for water analyses. Accreditation and Quality Assurance – Journal for Quality, Reliability and Comparability in Chemical Measurement 8, 467–474 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. E.N. Dzhafarov, Mathematical foundations of universal Fechnerian scaling, in Theory and Methods of Measurements with Persons, ed. by B. Berglund, G. B. Rossi, J. Townsend, L. R. Pendrill, (Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis, Milton Park, 2011)Google Scholar
  10. EA-4/16, Guideline on the Expression of Uncertainty in Quantitative Testing (EA, Organisation for European Accreditation, Berlin, 2003)Google 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. EURACHEM/CITAC, Traceability in Chemical Measurement—A Guide to Achieving Comparable Results in Chemical Measurement (Eurachem/CITAC, Lisbon, 2003)Google Scholar
  13. M. Golze, Why do we need traceability and uncertainty evaluation of measurement and test results? ACQUAL 8, 539–540 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. G. Gooday, The values of precision, ed. M. Norton Wise, Princeton University Press (1995) ISBN 0-691-03759-0Google Scholar
  15. J.P. Guilford, Psychometric Methods (McGraw-Hill, Inc, New York, 1936), pp. 1–19Google Scholar
  16. D.J. Hand, Measurement – A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, New York, 2016)., ISBN 978-0-19-877956-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. J. Hannig, C.M. Wang, H.K. Iyer, Uncertainty calculation for the ratio of dependent measurements. Metrologia 40, 177–183 (2003)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. S.M. Humphry, The role of the unit in physics and psychometrics. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 9(1), 1–24 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO 10012, Measurement Management Systems – Requirements for Measurement Processes and Measuring Equipment (International Standardisation Organisation, Geneva, 2003)Google Scholar
  20. ISO 5725, Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results — Part 1: General Principles and Definitions, ISO 5725-1:1994(en) (International Standardisation Organisation, Geneva, 1994). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-1:v1:en:sec:AGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO/IEC 17043, Conformity Assessment - General Requirements for Proficiency Testing (International Standardisation Organisation, Geneva, 2010)Google Scholar
  22. S. Ivarsson, B. Johansson, H. Källgren, L.R. Pendrill, Calibration of Submultiples of the Kilogram (SP Report 1989:32 National Testing Institute, Borås, 1989)Google Scholar
  23. G. Iverson, R.D. Luce, “The representational measurement approach to psychophysical and judgmental problems”, chapter 1, in Measurement, Judgment, and Decision Making, (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1998)Google Scholar
  24. JCGM 100, Evaluation of Measurement Data – Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM 1995 with Minor Corrections) (Joint Committee on Guides in Metrology (JCGM), Sèvres, 2008)Google Scholar
  25. H. Källgren, M. Lauwaars, B. Magnusson, L. Pendrill, P. Taylor, Role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment in legal metrology and trade, Accreditation and Quality Assurance – Journal for Quality, Reliability and Comparability in Chemical Measurement, 8, 541–7 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. B. King, Metrology and analytical chemistry: Bridging the cultural gap. Metrologia 34, 41–46 (1997)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. B. King, Meeting ISO/IEC 17025 traceability requirements. Accred. Qual. Assur. 8, 380–382 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. K. Koffka, Principles of Gestalt Psychology (Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1935)Google Scholar
  29. P.M. Kruyen, W.H.M. Emons, K. Sijtsma, Test length and decision quality in personnel selection: When is short too short? Int. J. Test. 12, 321–344 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2011.643517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. S. Kullback, R. Leibler, On information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Statist. 22, 79–86 (1951).  https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729694MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. J. M. Linacre, Bernoulli Trials, Fisher Information, Shannon Information and Rasch, Rasch Measurement Transactions 20:3 1062–3 (2006), https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt203a.htmGoogle Scholar
  32. J. Linacre, Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas. Trans. 7(4), 328 (1994)Google Scholar
  33. J. M. Linacre, W. P. Fisher, Jr, Harvey Goldstein’s objections to Rasch measurement: a response from Linacre, Fisher, Rasch Meas. Trans., 26:3 1383–9 (2012)Google Scholar
  34. G.N. Masters, A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 47, 149–174 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. H.U. Mittmann, M. Golze, A. Schmidt, Accreditation in global trade, ILAC and IAF joint conference on 23–24 September 2002, Berlin, Germany. ACQUAL 8, 315–316 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. J. Moberg, C. Gooskens, J. Nerbonne, N. Vaillette, Conditional entropy measures intelligibility among related languages, in Proceedings of the 17th Meeting of Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands, (LOT, Utrecht, 2007). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/296747/bookpart.pdf?sequence=2Google Scholar
  37. D.C. Montgomery, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (Wiley, Hoboken, 1996). ISBN: 0-471-30353-4zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. J. Nerbonne, W. Heering, P. Kleiweg, Edit distance and dialect proximity, in Introduction to reissue edition, Time Warps, String Edits and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison, ed. by D. Sankoff, J. Kruskal, (CSLI, Stanford, 1999).Google Scholar
  39. L.R. Pendrill, Discrete ordinal & interval scaling and psychometrics, in Métrologie 2013 Congress, (CFM, Paris, 2013)Google Scholar
  40. L. R. Pendrill, Meeting future needs for Metrological Traceability – A physicist’s view, Accreditation and Quality Assurance – Journal for Quality, Reliability and Comparability in Chemical Measurement, 10, 133–9, http://www.springerlink.com/content/0dn6x90cmr8hq3v4/?p=2338bc01ade44a208a2d8fb148ecd37aπ (2005)
  41. L.R. Pendrill, Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making & conformity assessment, Metrologia, 51: S206 (2014)Google Scholar
  42. L.R. Pendrill, Assuring measurement quality in person-centred healthcare. Meas. Sci. Technol 29(3), 034003 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/aa9cd2ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. L.R. Pendrill, W.P. Fisher Jr., Counting and quantification: Comparing psychometric and metrological perspectives on visual perceptions of number. Measurement 71, 46–55 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Z. Pizlo, Symmetry provides a Turing-type test for 3D vision, in Mathematical Models of Perception and Cognition, ed. by J. W. Houpt, L. M. Blabla, vol. 1, (Routledge, Abingdon, 2016). ISBN 978-1-315-64727-2Google Scholar
  45. R. Pradel, T. Steiger, H. Klich, Availability of reference materials: COMAR the database for certified reference materials. Accred. Qual. Assur. 8, 317–318 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. G. Rasch, On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology, 321–334 in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, IV. Berkeley: University of California Press. Available free from Project Euclid (1961)Google Scholar
  47. J.F. Reynolds, Estimating the standard deviation of a normal distribution. Math. Gaz. 71, 60–62 (1987).  https://doi.org/10.2307/3616296. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3616296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. G. B. Rossi, Measurement and Probability – A Probabilistic Theory of Measurement with Applications, Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology, Springer Dordrecht,  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8825-0 (2014)
  49. K.-D. Sommer, M. Kochsiek, Role of measurement uncertainty in deciding conformance in legal metrology. OIML Bull. XLIII, 19–24 (2002)Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. C. Spearman, The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 15, 72–101 (1904)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. C. Spearman, Correlation calculated from faulty data. Br. J. Psychol. 3, 271–295 (1910)Google Scholar
  53. J. Stenner, M. Smith, Testing construct theories. Percept. Mot. Skills 55, 415–426 (1982).  https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1982.55.2.415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. P. Tarka, Construction of the measurement scale for consumer’s attitudes in the frame of one-parametric Rasch model, in Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Œconomica, vol. 286, (2013), pp. 333–340. http://dspace.uni.lodz.pl:8080/xmlui/handle/11089/10321?locale-attribute=enGoogle Scholar
  55. L.L. Thurstone, The stimulus-response fallacy in psychology. Psychol. Rev. 30, 354–369 (1923)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. P. van der Helm, Simplicity versus likelihood in visual perception: From surprisals to precisals. Psychol. Bull. 126, 770–800 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. B.D. Wright, Comparing factor analysis and Rasch measurement. Rasch Meas. Trans. 8(1), 3–24 (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie Pendrill
    • 1
  1. 1.PartilleSweden

Personalised recommendations