Science & Justice
Volume 50, Issue 4 , Pages 182-186, December 2010

Ten methods for calculating the uncertainty of measurement

  • Jack Wallace

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationTel.: +1 805 477 1939; fax: +1 805 662 6717.

Ventura County Sheriff's Forensic Services Bureau, 800 S. Victoria Ave, Ventura, CA 93009, United States

Received 20 January 2010; received in revised form 20 May 2010; accepted 2 June 2010. published online 05 July 2010.

Abstract 

While forensic laboratories are coming under increasing pressure to provide meaningful estimates of measurement uncertainty, there has been little discussion of this topic in the literature. This article summarizes ten bases for estimating this parameter: (1) proficiency tests; (2) readability limits; (3) independent reference materials; (4) operational limits applied during calibration; (5) expert judgment; (6) precision control samples without (6) and with (7) contributions from extramural sources of error; (8) error budgets; (9) historical performance; and (10) ruggedness tests. Based on the assumptions underlying each approach, the forensic community will need to apply a variety of discipline-specific approaches to arrive at satisfactory estimates of measurement uncertainty.

Keywords: Uncertainty of measurement, Controlled substances, Forensic toxicology, Firearms, Mass, Length

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1355-0306(10)00070-5

doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2010.06.003

Science & Justice
Volume 50, Issue 4 , Pages 182-186, December 2010