16th International Research/Expert Conference
Trends in the Development of Machinery and Associated Technology
TMT 2012, Dubai, UAE, 10-12 September 2012
PROFICIENCY TESTING AND INTERLABORATORY
COMPARISONS IN LABORATORY FOR DIMENSIONAL
MEASUREMENT
Almira Softi, Nermina Zaimovi-Uzunovi, Hazim Basi
University of Sarajevo, Mechanical
Engineering Faculty Sarajevo
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
ABSTRACT
The testing/calibration laboratories shall demonstrate their performance through their participation
in appropriate proficiency testing (PT) schemes by means of interlaboratory comparisons. Proficiency
testing is the determination of laboratory testing performance by means of interlaboratory test
comparisons. Interlaboratory comparison is the organization, performance and evaluation of tests on
the same or similar test items by two or more laboratories in accordance with predetermined
conditions. Participation in proficiency testing scheme provides independent verification of laboratory
competence. It demonstrate to the publics, customers, accreditation bodies, regulators and
management that procedures are under control and gives technical confidence in the service which
laboratory provide.
Keywords: proficiency testing, laboratory, interlaboratory comparisons
1. INTRODUCTION
Proficiency testing is a method of checking laboratory testing performance by means of an inter-
laboratory test. It is an important way of meeting the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 in the
area of quality assurance of laboratory results. Participation in PT schemes provides laboratories
with an objective of assessing and demonstrating the reliability of data they are producing. It is also
mandated by accreditation bodies that laboratories participate in proficiency testing programs
for all types of measurements undertaken in that laboratory, when suitable programs exist.
Proficiency testing involves a group of laboratories performing the same measurements on the
same samples and comparing results. The key requirements of such comparisons are that the
samples are same or similar, and also that the set of samples measured are appropriate to test
and display similarities and differences in results. Interlaboratory comparisons are widely used for
a number of purposes and are being increasingly used internationally.
2. WHAT IS PROFICIENCY TESTING?
The typical format of proficiency testing programs issues a set of samples to each participant together
with a set of instructions and any necessary background information. The participants then carry out
the requested measurements in their normal manner and submit their results. The results are then
statistically handled to generate a report. Each participant is confidentially provided with a report to
allow them to compare their performance with the other participants. The performance of individual
laboratories will only be known by that particular laboratory and a limited number of management
personnel. The handling of results is generally performed in a manner that compares each individual
result with the consensus of the entire group, [1]. Regular participation in a proficiency testing scheme
291
provides independent verification of measurement capability of a laboratory and shows a commitment
to a maintenance and improvement of performance. It demonstrates to the public, customers,
accreditation bodies, regulators, and management that procedures are under control and gives
laboratorys staff confidence that the service which they provide will withstand scrutiny.
EURAMET- European Association of
BIPM - Bureau International des Poides et National Metrology Institutes
Measures SIM - Inter-American Metrology System
COOMET-Euro-Asian Cooperation of APMP -Asia Pacific Metrology Programme
National Metrological Institutions CC - Consultative Committe
BIPM
NMI participating in BIPM/CC key comparisons
NMI participating in BIPM/CC key comparisons and in regional key comparisons
NMI participating in regional key comparisons
NMI participating in neither BIPM/CC nor key comparisons and in regional key comparisons but
making bilateral comparisons
Figure 1. Scheme of equivalence of national measurement standards through key comparisons
3. TYPES OF PT SCHEMES
Proficiency testing schemes vary according to the needs of the sector in which they are used, the
nature of the proficiency test items, the methods in use and the number of participants,[2].Various
types of PT schemes are available, each based on at least one element of each of the following four
categories, [4]:
1. a) qualitative: the results of qualitative tests are descriptive and reported on a nominal or
ordinal scale;
b) quantitative: the results of quantitative measurements are numeric and are reported on an
interval or a ratio scale;
c) interpretive: no measurement is involved. The PT item is a measurement result, a set of data or
other set of information concerning an interpretative feature of the participants competence;
2. a) single: PT items are provided on a single occasion;
b) continuous: PT items are provided on a regular basis.
3. a) sequential: PT item to be measured is circulated successively from one participant to the
next. In this case the PT item may be returned to the PT provider before being passed on to the
next participant in order to determine whether any changes have taken place to the PT item. It is
also possible for the participants to converge in a common location to measure the same PT item;
b) simultaneous: in the most common PTs, randomly selected sub-samples from a homogeneous bulk
material is distributed simultaneously to participants for concurrent measurement after reception
292
of the results the PT provider will evaluate, on the basis of statistical techniques, the performance
of each individual participant and of the group as a whole.
4. a) pre-measurement: in this type of PT scheme, the PT item can be an item (e.g. a toy),
on which the participant has to decide which measurements should be conducted or a set of data
or other information (e.g. a case study);
b) measurement: the focus is specifically on the measurement process;
c) post-measurement: in this type of PT scheme, the PT item can be a set of data on which the
participant is requested to give an opinion or interpretation.
One special application of PT, often called blind PT, is where the PT item is indistinguishable from
normal customer items or samples received by the participant. All of the types of PT schemes
mentioned above could be organized as a blind PT, [2].
4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LABORATORIES
According to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 a laboratory shall have quality control procedures for monitoring
the validity of test and calibration undertaken. This monitoring may include the participation in
interlaboratory comparisons or proficiency testing programmes but also other means e.g. calibrations
using the same or different methods. By this means a laboratory can provide evidence of its
competence to its clients and the accreditation body. The very important fact which shall have to be
recognized is that such activities have economic impact on laboratories. The recommended minimum
amount of appropriate proficiency testing activities per laboratory is:
one activity prior to gaining accreditation,
one activity relating to each major sub discipline of a laboratory scope of accreditation within
the period between two subsequent assessments (e.g. four years).
For calibrations, if the laboratory, based on the measurement capabilities of its scope, must participate
in an interlaboratory comparison of a calibration type which covers a large range of instruments/
quantities, then it should plan its participations, so that every four years it participates in a scheme
with a different calibration object, i.e. a dimensional measurements laboratory is accredited for
calibrating vernier calipers, micrometers and measuring tapes. According to the classification provided
with the types of calibrations, in conjunction with the information with the classifications of
dimensional measurements, the particular instruments fall into the category linear dimensions
and hand instruments. The laboratory fulfills its obligation for participating in an interlaboratory
scheme for the corresponding measuring capability, by selecting a scheme for calibrating vernier
calipers in the 1st fourth-year period, micrometres in the 2nd and measuring tapes in the 3rd (order
arbitrary). Therefore, participating every four years in schemes with exclusively the same calibration
object, e.g. vernier caliper, is unacceptable, [6].
In order to determine whether or not a participating laboratory is proficient for a particular
measurement discipline, an evaluation of the laboratorys performance must be conducted. While
many methods of evaluation exist, the most commonly used method for determining the performance
of an individual calibration laboratory is the normalized error (En) formula. Commonly used statistics
for quantitative results are listed below, in order of increasing degree of participants results is found
in ISO/IEC 17043:2010, [3.4].
The difference, D, is calculated using equation (1):
D= (x-X) .(1)
The z scores are calculated using equation (2):
.(2)
(3)
293
where:
x - participants measurement result
X - assigned value of the artifact
- standard deviation for proficiency testing
En - normalized error
Ulab - uncertainty of the participants measurement results
Uref - uncertainty of the reference laboratorys assigned value.
When | En | 1 the result is satisfactory.
When | En| > 1 the result receives an action signal, or unsatisfactory performance [3], [4].
A Proficiency Testing (PT) scheme is a system for objectively evaluating laboratory results by
external means, and includes regular comparison of a laboratory's results at intervals with those of
other laboratories [5,7, 8].The main objective of a PT scheme is to help the participating laboratory to
assess the accuracy of its test results.
5. CONCLUSION
Proficiency testing is gaining increasing importance as a quality assurance tool for laboratories. It is
important for laboratories to have comprehensive information on the scope and availability of
proficiency testing schemes in the areas in which they work. This will enable them to make
appropriate decisions about in which scheme they should participate. All above mentioned show how
valuable information can be obtained by interlaboratory comparisons. It is important that laboratories
give to its customers the right information regarding the accuracy of the results of their calibration
standards and instruments. Intercomparison of measurements results are one of the main ways of
proving realistic estimates of measurement uncertainty. The basic principle of the laboratory work
must be Compare our measuring results and find out where we are in the world of metrology. The
experience of each laboratory, which confers intercomparisons, it can not replace modern equipment
and other assumptions. Therefore, collaboration between the laboratories is necessary for solving
common issues and dilemmas that challenge the results of intercomparison.
6. REFERENCES
[1] EA-2/10 EA Policy for Participation in National and International Proficiency Testing Activities, European
Co-operation for Accreditation, 2001.
[2] ILAC-G22 ILAC Use of Proficiency Testing as a tool for Accreditation in Testing, ILAC, 2004.
[3] Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons (ISO 13528), International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, 2005.
[4] Standard BAS ISO/IEC 17043:2010 Conformity assessment-General requirements for proficiency testing
First edition, 2010.
[5] Basic H., Softic A.,: The importance of interlaboratory comparison in length measurement as a pre-
requisite for raising the accuracy of measurement and development of measurement traceability, 14th
International Research/Expert Conference Trends in the Development of Machinery and Associated
Technology, TMT 2010, Mediterranean Cruise, 11-18 September, 2010.
[6] Gust Jeff C.,: A discussion on issues of stability and homogeneity in proficiency testing for calibration
laboratories, Simposio de Metrologia, 25-27, October, 2006.
[7] Hellenic Accreditation System S.A. PT policy: ESYD Policy relevant to proficiency testing schemes and
interlaboratory comparisons, ESYD PDI/02/01/02-09-2011.
[8] Pajkic B.,: Medulaboratorijska saradnja-Primjeri interkomparacije rezultata mjerenja etalona duzine,
Kongres metrologa 2011, Kladovo, Oktobar, 2011.
294
