Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Practical guidance for organizing small interlaboratory comparisons

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Accreditation and Quality Assurance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article brings practical guidance for organization of interlaboratory comparisons (ILCs) with small number of participants (n = 2–7) that is not arranged by a proficiency testing provider. The methodological guideline aims to provide practical advices in following technical requirements of small ILC organization: design of a scheme, preparation, packaging and distribution of ILC test items, instructions for participants, evaluation of results and participants’ performance, and participation report. The determination of the assigned value and standard deviation for proficiency assessment is also covered and is accompanied by the practical example where the assigned value is established using order statistics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ISO/IEC 17043 (2010) Conformity assessment—general requirements for proficiency testing. International Organization Standardization, Geneva

  2. EA-4/21 INF:2018 Guidelines for the assessment of the appropriateness of small interlaboratory comparisons within the process of laboratory accreditation. European Co-operation for Accreditation

  3. Kuselman I, Fajgelj A (2010) IUPAC/CITAC guide: Selection and use of proficiency testing schemes for a limited number of participants–chemical analytical laboratories (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl Chem 82:1099–1135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pankartov I, Elhanany S, Heig S, Zaritsky S, Ostapenko I, Kuselman I (2010) Development of a proficiency testing scheme for a limited number of participants in the field of natural water analysis. Accred Qual Assur 15:459–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuselman I, Pavlichenko M (2004) Designs of experiment for proficiency testing with a limited number of participants. Accred Qual Assur 9:387–390

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Belli M, Ellison SLR, Fajgelj A, Kuselman I, Sansone U, Wegscheider W (2007) Implementation of proficiency testing schemes for a limited number of participants. Accred Qual Assur 12:391–398

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wong S (2011) Performance evaluation for proficiency testing with a limited number of participants. Accred Qual Assur 16:539–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. ISO Guide 80 (2014) Guidance for the in-house preparation of quality control materials (QCMs), Geneva

  9. ISO 13528 (2015) Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison, Geneva

  10. Miller JN, Miller JC (2010) Statistics and chemometrics for analytical chemistry, 6th edn. Pearson Education, New York (ISBN: 978-0-273-73042-2)

    Google Scholar 

  11. JCGM 200:2012 International vocabulary of metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM) 3rd edn

  12. Blackman NM, Machol RE (1987) Confidence intervals based on one or more observations. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 33:373–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Meloun M, Militký J (2011) Statistical data analysis: a practical guide. Woodhead Publishing India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (ISBN: 978-93-80308-11-1)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (LTV 20008) and the Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing (PRM 2019 VII/6/19).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Palacký University Olomouc, 17. listopadu 12, 771 46, Olomouc, Czech Republic

    David Milde

  2. Eurachem Czech Republic, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí Nad Labem, Pasteurova 1, 400 96, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic

    Eva Klokočníková

  3. CSlab Ltd., Bavorská 14, 155 00, Prague 5, Czech Republic

    Alena Nižnanská

Authors
  1. David Milde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Klokočníková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alena Nižnanská
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Milde.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

DM and EK declare no conflict of interest. AN works for an accredited PT provider.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milde, D., Klokočníková, E. & Nižnanská, A. Practical guidance for organizing small interlaboratory comparisons. Accred Qual Assur 26, 17–22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-021-01458-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-021-01458-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation