Skip Navigation


Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on June 5, 2008
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2008 52(6):519-525; doi:10.1093/annhyg/men023
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
52/6/519    most recent
men023v2
men023v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bartley, D. L.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bartley, D. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society

The Meaning of the Bias Uncertainty Measure

David L. Bartley*

3904 Pocahontas Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45227, USA

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +1 513 652 4949; e-mail: dbartley{at}eos.net

Characterization of measurement uncertainty in terms of root sums of squares of both unknown systematic as well as random error components is given meaning in the sense of prediction intervals. Both types of errors are commonly encountered with industrial hygiene air monitoring of hazardous substances. Two extreme types of measurement methods are presented for illustrating how confidence levels may be ascribed to prediction intervals defined by such uncertainty values. In the case of method calibration at each measurement, systematic error or bias may enter from a biased calibrant. At another extreme, a single initial method evaluation may leave residual bias owing to random error in the evaluation itself or to the use of a biased reference method. Analysis is simplified through new simple approximations to probabilistic limits (quantiles) on the magnitude of a non-central Student t-distributed random variable. Connection is established between traditional confidence limits, accuracy measures in the case of bias minimization and an uncertainty measure.

Keywords: bias • systematic error • uncertainty • accuracy • non-central Student's t

Received February 24, 2008; in final form April 14, 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
D. Bartley and G. Liden
Measurement Uncertainty
Ann. Hyg., August 1, 2008; 52(6): 413 - 417.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.