10.12 Summary
181
Table 10.1 Evaluation of the results from the laboratory participating in ILC round
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Lab ID
Mean value
as delivered
by lab
Standard
uncertainty * ,
u
z score
z score
zeta score
E n score
1
0.53
0.015
0.59
0.50
0.71
0.35
2
0.494
–
−0.47
−0.40
–
–
3
0.503
0.086
−0.21
−0.18
−0.08
−0.04
4
0.51
0.0255
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
0.482
0.011
−0.82
−0.70
−1.06
−0.53
6
0.5
0.06
−0.29
−0.25
−0.15
−0.08
7
0.557
0.0557
1.38
1.18
0.77
0.39
8
0.579
–
2.03
1.73
–
–
9
0.484
0.028
−0.76
−0.65
−0.71
−0.35
10
0.495
0.014
−0.44
−0.38
−0.54
−0.27
11
0.515
0.027
0.15
0.13
0.14
0.07
12
0.5
0.075
−0.29
−0.25
−0.13
−0.06
13
0.534
0.002
0.71
0.60
1.00
0.50
14
0.586
–
2.24
1.90
–
–
15
0.5
0.05
−0.29
−0.25
−0.18
−0.09
16
0.519
0.088
0.26
0.23
0.10
0.05
17
0.519
0.0519
0.26
0.23
0.16
0.08
18
0.502
–
−0.24
−0.20
–
–
19
0.483
0.058
−0.79
−0.68
−0.43
−0.22
20
0.49
–
−0.59
−0.50
–
–
21
0.546
0.00819
1.06
0.90
1.42
0.71
22
0.599
0.038
2.62
2.23
1.98
0.99
23
0.509
0.009
−0.03
−0.03
−0.04
−0.02
24
0.529
0.04761
0.56
0.48
0.36
0.18
25
0.49
0.03
−0.59
−0.50
−0.52
−0.26
* For those laboratories that submitted the result with an expanded uncertainty for k 2, the value
was divided by 2
The critical example of the laboratory 22 is highlighted in bold
in comparison to the evaluation based on indicators that also include the uncertainty
provided by the laboratory. Depending on the scope of the laboratory activities as
well as the purpose of measurements, the use more demanding or fit for purpose
scores for the evaluation of laboratory performance is justified.
When discussing the variety of evaluation criteria, it is reasonable to ask why the
ILC/PT providers do not use one commonly accepted score. One point to consider
is that, according to the requirements of the ISO/DIS 13528, the ILC/PT provider
has a right to apply criteria (scores) depending on the needs of a given group of
181
Table 10.1 Evaluation of the results from the laboratory participating in ILC round
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Lab ID
Mean value
as delivered
by lab
Standard
uncertainty * ,
u
z score
z score
zeta score
E n score
1
0.53
0.015
0.59
0.50
0.71
0.35
2
0.494
–
−0.47
−0.40
–
–
3
0.503
0.086
−0.21
−0.18
−0.08
−0.04
4
0.51
0.0255
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
0.482
0.011
−0.82
−0.70
−1.06
−0.53
6
0.5
0.06
−0.29
−0.25
−0.15
−0.08
7
0.557
0.0557
1.38
1.18
0.77
0.39
8
0.579
–
2.03
1.73
–
–
9
0.484
0.028
−0.76
−0.65
−0.71
−0.35
10
0.495
0.014
−0.44
−0.38
−0.54
−0.27
11
0.515
0.027
0.15
0.13
0.14
0.07
12
0.5
0.075
−0.29
−0.25
−0.13
−0.06
13
0.534
0.002
0.71
0.60
1.00
0.50
14
0.586
–
2.24
1.90
–
–
15
0.5
0.05
−0.29
−0.25
−0.18
−0.09
16
0.519
0.088
0.26
0.23
0.10
0.05
17
0.519
0.0519
0.26
0.23
0.16
0.08
18
0.502
–
−0.24
−0.20
–
–
19
0.483
0.058
−0.79
−0.68
−0.43
−0.22
20
0.49
–
−0.59
−0.50
–
–
21
0.546
0.00819
1.06
0.90
1.42
0.71
22
0.599
0.038
2.62
2.23
1.98
0.99
23
0.509
0.009
−0.03
−0.03
−0.04
−0.02
24
0.529
0.04761
0.56
0.48
0.36
0.18
25
0.49
0.03
−0.59
−0.50
−0.52
−0.26
* For those laboratories that submitted the result with an expanded uncertainty for k 2, the value
was divided by 2
The critical example of the laboratory 22 is highlighted in bold
in comparison to the evaluation based on indicators that also include the uncertainty
provided by the laboratory. Depending on the scope of the laboratory activities as
well as the purpose of measurements, the use more demanding or fit for purpose
scores for the evaluation of laboratory performance is justified.
When discussing the variety of evaluation criteria, it is reasonable to ask why the
ILC/PT providers do not use one commonly accepted score. One point to consider
is that, according to the requirements of the ISO/DIS 13528, the ILC/PT provider
has a right to apply criteria (scores) depending on the needs of a given group of