R Kacker and A Jones
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8910, USA
R Kacker and A Jones 2003 Metrologia 40 235
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement is being increasingly recognized as a de facto international standard. The ISO Guide recommends a standardized way of expressing uncertainty in all kinds of measurements and provides a comprehensive approach for combining information to evaluate that uncertainty. The ISO Guide supports uncertainties evaluated from statistical methods, Type A, and uncertainties determined by other means, Type B. The ISO Guide recommends classical (frequentist) statistics for evaluating the Type A components of uncertainty; but it interprets the combined uncertainty from a Bayesian viewpoint. This is inconsistent. In order to overcome this inconsistency, we suggest that all Type A uncertainties should be evaluated through a Bayesian approach. It turns out that the estimates from a classical statistical analysis are either equal or approximately equal to the corresponding estimates from a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior probability distributions. So the classical (frequentist) estimates may be used provided they are interpreted from the Bayesian viewpoint. The procedure of the ISO Guide for evaluating the combined uncertainty is to propagate the uncertainties associated with the input quantities. This procedure does not yield a complete specification of the distribution represented by the result of measurement and its associated combined standard uncertainty. So the correct coverage factor for a desired coverage probability of an expanded uncertainty interval cannot always be determined. Nonetheless, the ISO Guide suggests that the coverage factor may be computed by assuming that the distribution represented by the result of measurement and its associated standard uncertainty is a normal distribution or a scaled-and-shifted t-distribution with degrees of freedom determined from the Welch–Satterthwaite formula. This assumption may be unjustified and the coverage factor so determined may be incorrect. A popular convention is to set the coverage factor as 2. When the distribution represented by the result of measurement and its associated standard uncertainty is not completely determined, the 2-standard-uncertainty interval may be interpreted in terms of its minimum coverage probability for an applicable class of probability distributions.
Issue 5 (October 2003)
Received 9 May 2003
Published 2 September 2003
R Kacker and A Jones 2003 Metrologia 40 235
Jonathan G Koomey 2008 Environ. Res. Lett. 3 034008
M C Hutley et al 1994 Pure Appl. Opt. 3 133
Felix Loske et al 2009 Nanotechnology 20 264010
T P Jones and J Tapping 1988 Metrologia 25 41
Ernst Hairer and Gilles Vilmart 2006 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 13225
T J Quinn 2003 Metrologia 40 103
Mihai Bailesteanu et al 2008 Nonlinearity 21 113
J E Hansen 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 024002