Interpretation of interlaboratory comparison results to evaluate laboratory proficiency

Accreditation and Quality Assurance

Volumn 10, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 521-526

  Visser, Rob G ^a  

^a Inst for Interlaboratory Studies   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Assigned value; Corrective action; Effectivity; Proficiency test; Root cause analysis; Standard deviation; z score

Indexed keywords

EID: 32944456854     PISSN: 09491775     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00769-005-0051-2     Document Type: Article

References (28)

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 and results. Part 4: Basic methods for the determination of trueness of a standard measurement method, ISO, Geneva
9. ASTM E178 (2002), Standard practice for dealing with outlying observations, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA
10. ASTM E1301 (2003), Standard guide for proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, USA
11. ISO/FDIS 13528 (2005), Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons, ISO, Geneva
12. IIS04R01 (2004), Results of proficiency test crude oil IIS, http://www.iisnl.com
13. ISO 5725-2 (1994), Annex B3, Table B3, ISO, Geneva
14. IIS04C06 (2004) Results of proficiency test methanol IIS, http://www.iisnl.com
15. Lowthian PJ, Thompson M (2002) Analyst 127:1359-1364
16. AMC (2002) Understanding and acting on scores obtained in proficiency testing schemes, AMC Technical Brief 11, Royal Society of Chemistry, London
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/ Toelichtingrapportage.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