Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Comparability of PT Schemes - What did we Learn from COEPT?|
|Authors:||BOLEY N; VAN DER VEEN ADRIAAN; ROBOUCH PIOTR; GOLZE M; VAN DE KREEKE JOHANNES; ORNEMARK U; TYLEE B|
|Citation:||ACCREDITATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE vol. 11 no. 8-9 p. 391-399|
|Type:||Articles in periodicals and books|
|Abstract:||The use of proficiency testing schemes (PTS) by laboratories as an integral part of their quality system has been increasing in recent years. Accreditation bodies, regulators and the laboratories’ customers are increasingly using results from PTS in their relationship with laboratories. There are many PTS available in Europe in analytical chemistry; EPTIS indicates over 400. The comparability of these PTS is now a real issue, as many organisers of PTS move into new markets. The COEPT project has systematically demonstrated (in four technical sectors – water, soil, food and occupational hygiene), that there are many similarities between PTS in each sector. For example, nearly all use the z-score as a performance index. One significant difference between many PTS is the value used for the term s in the z-score equation, and this gives a range of evaluations for the same data point. Despite this, the agreement between PTS in the same sector for the evaluation of data is approximately 85%. COEPT has given us a basis for establishing the comparability of PTS and showing us where further harmonisation could occur.|
|JRC Institute:||Health, Consumers and Reference Materials|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.