Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s00769-005-0051-2
Rob G. Visser
R. G. Visser
Institute for Interlaboratory Studies,
Spijkenisse, The Netherlands
GENERAL PAPER
Interpretation of interlaboratory
comparison results to evaluate laboratory
proficiency
Introduction
Background
As an organiser of proficiency tests, the author of this article has received many questions from participating laboratories about bad results from the proficiency tests that
have been organised. Many questions originate from external auditors, e.g. from the national accreditation organisation. Also when visiting laboratories as an auditor, the
author has had many discussions with laboratory managers
about procedures for following up bad results from proficiency tests. Often, as a first step, a re-analysis of the
sample is performed. Sometimes investigations are undertaken and a reason for the aberrant result is found.
However, only in rare cases are structural quality measures taken to prevent re-occurrence. More often, only a
short-term corrective action is done that will only solve the
current problem for the moment. In this way, the effectivity
regarding participation in proficiency tests is unnecessarily
low.
Although relevant literature is available on this subject
[1], in this article some new views are discussed and enriched with examples in order to motivate the laboratory
community to improve the follow up of proficiency test
results and, consequently, improve the effectivity of proficiency test participation.
or
In Europe, EA (European co-operation for Accreditation), the organisation of EAL (European co-operation
522
Kernel Density
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-4
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
867
609
1615
823
332
347
608
824
1016
862
1029
395
342
1009
357
323
311
657
191
446
1221
131
174
0.7940
0.7935
0.7930
0.7925
0.7920
0.7915
0.7910
0.7905
0.7900
171
150
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
523
524
PT-provider
Selected outlier
test(s)
Aquacheck [17]
CHEK [18]
FAPAS [19]
iis [20]
KDDL [21]
KIWA [22]
QM [23]
LVU [24]
RIZA [25]
SMPCS [26]
WASP [27]
WEPAL [28]
UK
NL
UK
NL
NL
NL
UK
DE
NL
NL
UK
NL
None
Cochran, Grubbs
ANOVA
Dixon, Grubbs
Cochran, Grubbs
Grubbs, Veglia
None
None
Cochran, Grubbs
None
z>2 = excluded
None
Error treshold
Horwitz
Fixed target
Fixed target
Actual
Actual
Fixed target
Horwitz
Actual
Fixed target
Actual
Actual
Mean
Mean
Trimmed mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Robust
Robust
Mean
Robust
Trimmed mean
Trimmed mean
525
526
References
1. Eurachem (2000) Selection, use and
interpretation of proficiency testing
(PT) schemes by laboratories
Eurachem, http://www.eurachem.ul.pt/
2. ISO/IEC 17025 (2005), General
requirements for the competence of
testing and calibration laboratories,
ISO, Geneva
3. EA-02/10, rev. 00 (2001), EA policy for
participation in national and
international proficiency testing
activities,
http://www.european-accreditation.org/
4. EA-03/04, rev. 01 (2001), Use of
proficiency testing as a tool for
accreditation in testing,
http://www.european-accreditation.org/
5. ISO Guide 43-1 (1997), Proficiency
testing by interlaboratory comparison.
Part 1: Development and operation of
proficiency testing schemes, ISO,
Geneva
6. ILAC G13 (2000), ILAC Guidelines for
the Requirements for the Competence
of Providers of Proficiency Testing
Schemes, ILAC, http://www.ilac.org
7. ISO 4259 (1992), Petroleum products:
determination and application of
precision data in relation to methods of
test, ISO, Geneva
8. ISO 5725-4 (1994), Accuracy (trueness
and precision) of measurement methods
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17. http://www.aquacheck.net/Pages/
returnsnreporting.htm
18. http://www.chek-ps.nl
19. FAPAS (2002) Protocol, organisation
and analysis of data, 6th edn.,
http://ptg.csl.gov.uk/fapasprotocol.cfm
20. IIS (2003) Protocol for the
organisation, statistics and evaluation,
version 3, IIS, http://www.iisnl.com
21. KDLL (1994) Report R94.012, KDLL,
Zeist, NL
22. http://www.kiwa.nl/uploadedFiles/
Kiwa website/03 Water/020 Diensten/
Toelichting rapportage.doc
23. QM (2002) Statistical protocol, QM,
Bury, UK
24. http://www.lvus.de/html/download.htm
25. RIZA (1998) Procedure W 5003 8.301,
RIZA, Lelystad, NL
26. Shell Global Solutions (2004) Shell
main product correlation scheme, Shell
Global Solutions, Amsterdam, NL,
confidential communication
27. WASP (1996) Information book for
participants, 4th edn. WASP, UK
28. van Montfort MAJ (1992) Statistical
remarks on round robin data of IPE and
ISE, Wageningen Agricultural
University, Wageningen, NL