Laboratory effects models for interlaboratory comparisons

The statistical analysis of results from inter-laboratory comparisons (for example Key Comparisons, or Supplemental Comparisons) produces an estimate of the measurand (reference value) and statements of equivalence of the results from the participating laboratories. Methods to estimate the reference value have been proposed that rest on the idea of finding a so-called consistent subset of laboratories, that is, eliminating allegedly outlying participants. We propose an alternative statistical model that accommodates all participant data and incorporates the dispersion of the measurement values obtained by different laboratories into the total uncertainty of the various estimates. This model recognizes the fact that the dispersion of values between laboratories often is substantially larger than the measurement uncertainties provided by the participating laboratories. We illustrate the methods on data from key comparison CCQM–K25.

[1]  A. Tamhane,et al.  Multiple Comparison Procedures , 1989 .

[2]  Clemens Elster,et al.  Analysis of key comparison data and laboratory biases , 2008 .

[3]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[4]  Maurice G. Cox,et al.  The evaluation of key comparison data: determining the largest consistent subset , 2007 .

[5]  Raghu N. Kacker,et al.  Classical and Bayesian interpretation of the Birge test of consistency and its generalized version for correlated results from interlaboratory evaluations , 2008 .

[6]  Dominic F. Vecchia,et al.  Consistency tests for key comparison data , 2004 .

[7]  S. Wise,et al.  KEY COMPARISON: CCQM-K25: Determination of PCB congeners in sediment , 2004 .

[8]  Blaza Toman,et al.  Assessment of measurement uncertainty via observation equations , 2007 .

[9]  M. Cox.  The evaluation of key comparison data , 2002 .

[10]  A. Tamhane,et al.  Multiple Comparison Procedures , 2009 .

[11]  S. R. Searle.  Linear Models , 1971 .

[12]  D. Bates,et al.  Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS , 2001 .

[13]  Nien Fan Zhang,et al.  The uncertainty associated with the weighted mean of measurement data , 2006 .

[14]  Maurice G. Cox,et al.  Recent recommendations of the Consultative Committee for Length (CCL) regarding strategies for evaluating key comparison data , 2006 .

[15]  Larry Wasserman,et al.  All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference , 2004 .

[16]  Blaza Toman,et al.  Bayesian Approaches to Calculating a Reference Value in Key Comparison Experiments , 2007, Technometrics.

[17]  S. Standard.  GUIDE TO THE EXPRESSION OF UNCERTAINTY IN MEASUREMENT , 2006 .

[18]  Andrew Thomas,et al.  WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility , 2000, Stat. Comput..

[19]  B. Toman.  Statistical interpretation of key comparison degrees of equivalence based on distributions of belief , 2007 .

[20]  Andrew D. Martin,et al.  MCMCpack: Markov chain Monte Carlo in R , 2011 .

[21]  Blaza Toman.  SHORT COMMUNICATION: Statistical interpretation of key comparison degrees of equivalence based on distributions of belief , 2007 .

[22]  Anthony C. Davison,et al.  Bootstrap Methods and Their Application , 1998 .

[23]  Larry Wasserman,et al.  All of Statistics , 2004 .