Measurement Challenge: Specification and Design

  • Leslie Pendrill
Part of the Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology book series (SSMST)


‘Measurement is not an end in itself …’ might seem to be a paradoxical way of introducing a book about measurement. But measurement is important to the majority since it gives objective evidence on which to base decisions. The need for quality-assured measurement has evolved and widened over the centuries. Quality-assured measurement remains a topic of burgeoning and increasingly multidisciplinary interest.

This book will deliberately not follow the many exposés already in the literature which set the subject of measurement in a historical context, however evocative that may be. In-depth accounts of how the ancient Egyptians or bold navigators struggled when pioneering quality-assured measurement will be mostly left to others to present.

There is a need and a challenge to formulate a unified view of measurement. To this end, most of this first chapter of the book—as well as the last—will paradoxically not deal directly with measurement, but rather the objects—products, services, concepts, etc. and their characteristics—which are the concern of many people, who then ask metrologists to measure them. The first and last chapters thus provide object-related ‘bookends’—supporting a description of quality-assured measurement which is the central issue.

Presenting measurement in relation to objects will allow measurements to be anchored in relevance and interest for third parties. As it turns out, the approach also provides the key to a unified presentation about quality-assured measurement across social and physical sciences where objects are probed by man as a measurement instrument.

This chapter, as for most chapters in the book, concludes with templates provided for the reader to complete the corresponding sections of the measurement task for their chosen case.


Product Quality assurance 3rd party interests Measurement Unified Multidisciplinary Social science Physical science 


  1. A. Agresti, Categorical Data Analysis, 3rd edn. (Wiley, Hoboken, 2013). ISBN 978-0-470-46363-5zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. H. Ahn, Effect modeling of count data using logistic regression with qualitative predictors. Engineering 6, 758–772 (2014). Scholar
  3. T. Akkerhuis, J. de Mast, T. Erdmann, The statistical evaluation of binary test without gold standard: robustness of latent variable approaches. Measurement 95, 473–479 (2017). Scholar
  4. J. Dagman, R. Emardson, S. Kanerva, L.R. Pendrill, A. Farbrot, S. Abbas, A. Nihlstrand, Defining comfort for heavily-incontinent patients assisted by absorbent products in several contexts, in Innovating for Continence Meeting, Chicago, IL, 12–13 April 2013, (2013)Google Scholar
  5. F. de Battisti, G. Nicolini, S. Salini, The Rasch Model in customer satisfaction survey data. Qual. Technol. Quant. Manag. 7, 15–13 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. W.E. Deming, Out of the Crisis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA, 1986). ISBN 0911379010. OCLC 13126265Google Scholar
  7. E. den Ouden, Y. Lu, P.J.M. Sonnemans, A.C. Brombacher, Quality and reliability problems from a consumer perspective: an increasing problem overlooked by businesses? Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 22, 821–838 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Donabedian, The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 260(12), 1743–1748 (1988). Scholar
  9. S. Ellison, T. Fearn, Characterising the performance of qualitative analytical methods: statistics and terminology. TRAC-Trend Anal. Chem. 24(6), 468–476 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EN 15224:2012 Health Care Services—Quality Management Systems—Requirements Based on EN ISO 9001:2008Google Scholar
  11. R. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I (2013),
  12. L. Finkelstein, Widely-defined measurement – an analysis of challenges. Measurement 42, 1270–1277 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. W. Hardcastle, Qualitative Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice (Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, 1998)Google Scholar
  14. ISO 10576-1 “Statistical Methods – Guidelines for the Evaluation of Conformity with Specified Requirements”, 2003Google Scholar
  15. ISO 2018, What is Conformity Assessment?
  16. ISO 3534-2:2006, Statistics - Vocabulary and Symbols - Part 2: Applied statistics, International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management Systems — Requirements,
  18. ISO 9241-11:1998. Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals. Website. Accessed 18 May 2017
  19. ISO 9241-11:2018. Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction - Part 11: Usability: Definitions and Concepts,
  20. ISO/IEC 17000:2004, Conformity Assessment – General Vocabulary, International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO/TS 20282-2:2013. IDT Usability of Consumer Products for Public Use – Part 2: Summative Test Method. Website. Accessed 18 May 2017
  22. JCGM 200:2012 International vocabulary of metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM 3rd edition) (JCGM 200:2008 with minor corrections) WG2 Joint Committee on Guides in Metrology (JCGM) (Sevrès: BIPM)Google Scholar
  23. A.M. Joglekar, Statistical Methods for Six Sigma in R&D and Manufacturing (Wiley, Hoboken, 2003). ISBN: 0-471-20342-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. L. F. M. Kuijt-Evers, Comfort in Using Hand Tools: Theory, Design and Evaluation (2006), ISBN-10: 90-5986-218-X, ISBN-13: 978-90-5986-218-XGoogle Scholar
  25. Lexiles, Lexile Framework for Reading (2018),
  26. L. Mari, A. Maul, D.T. Irribarra, M. Wilson, Quantities, quantification, and the necessary and sufficient conditions for measurement. Measurement 100, 115–121 (2017). Scholar
  27. J. McGrane, Stevens’ forgotten crossroads: the divergent measurement traditions in the physical and psychological sciences from the mid-twentieth century. Front. Psychol. Hypothesis Theory 6, 1–8 (2015). art. 431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. A. Mencattini, L. Mari, A conceptual framework for concept definition in measurement: the case of ‘sensitivity’. Measurement 72, 77–87 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. D.C. Montgomery, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (Wiley, Hoboken, 1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. R. Nelson, Physics envy: get over it. Iss. Sci. Technol. 31, 71–78 (2015)Google Scholar
  31. G. Nilsson, Private Communication (1995)Google Scholar
  32. G. Nordin, R. Dybkaer, U. Forsum, X. Fuentes-Arderiu, F. Pontet, Vocabulary on nominal property, examination, and related concepts for clinical laboratory sciences (IFCC-IUPAC Recommendations 2017). Pure Appl. Chem. 90(5), 913–935 (2018). Scholar
  33. OIML, “Quantity of product in prepackages”, International Recommendation OIML R 87 Edition 2016 (E), (2016),
  34. L.R. Pendrill, Assuring measurement quality in person-centred healthcare. Meas. Sci. Technol 29(3), 034003 (2018).
  35. L.R. Pendrill, Operating ‘cost’ characteristics in sampling by variable and attribute. Accred. Qual. Assur. 13, 619–631 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. L.R. Pendrill, Risk assessment and decision-making risk assessment and decision-making, in Theory and Methods of Measurements with Persons, ed. by B. Berglund, G. B. Rossi, J. Townsend, L. R. Pendrill, (Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, 2010). ISBN: 978-1-84872-939-1Google Scholar
  37. L.R. Pendrill, El ser humano como instrument de medida. e-medida (2014a)Google Scholar
  38. L.R. Pendrill, Man as a measurement instrument. NCSLI Meas. J. Meas. Sci. 9, 24–35 (2014b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. L.R. Pendrill, Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making & conformity assessment. Metrologia 51, S206 (2014c)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. G. Rasch, On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology, in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1961), pp. 321–334Google Scholar
  41. S. Rice, L.R. Pendrill, N. Petersson, J. Nordlinder, A. Farbrot, Rationale and design of a novel method to assess the usability of body-worn absorbent incontinence care products by caregivers. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 45, 456–464 (2018). open accessCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. F.S. Roberts, Measurement theory with applications to decision-making, utility, and the social sciences, in Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 7, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985). ISBN 978-0-521-30227-2Google Scholar
  43. G.B. Rossi, F. Crenna, “Toward a formal theory of the measuring system”, IMEKO 2016 TC1-TC7-TC13. J. Phys. Conference Series 772, 012010 (2016).
  44. K. Sawyer, H. Sankey, R. Lombardo, Over-measurement. Measurement 93, 379–384 (2016). Scholar
  45. W.A. Shewhart, [1939]. Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control (Dover, New York, 1986). ISBN 0486652327. OCLC 13822053. Reprint. Originally published: Washington, DC: Graduate School of the Department of Agriculture, 1939Google Scholar
  46. L Skedung, L.R. Pendrill et al., Evaluation of sensory properties of skin creams using Rasch transformation, in 11th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Göteborg, 2015Google Scholar
  47. J. Stenner, M. Smith, Testing construct theories. Percept. Mot. Skills 55, 415–426 (1982). Scholar
  48. E. Svensson, Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. J. Rehabil. Med. 33, 47–48 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. wD.A. Swyt, Challenges to NIST in Dimensional Metrology: The Impact of Tightening Tolerances in the U.S. Discrete Part Manufacturing Industry, NISTIR 4757, Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. (1992)Google Scholar
  50. R. Tezza, A.C. Bornia, S.F. de Andrade, Measuring web usability using item response theory: principles, features and opportunities. Interact Comp. 23, 67–175 (2011)Google Scholar
  51. A. Viseu, Integration of social science into research is crucial. Nature 525, 291 (2015). Scholar
  52. T. Vosk, Measurement uncertainty: requirement for admission of forensic science evidence, in Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, ed. by A. Jamieson, A. A. Moenssens, (Wiley, Chichester, 2015). Scholar
  53. J. Weller et al., Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: a Rasch analysis approach. J. Behav. Decis. Making 26(2), 198–212 (2013)Google Scholar
  54. M. Wilson et al., A comparison of measurement concepts across physical science and social science domains: instrument design, calibration, and measurement. J. Phys. Conf. Series 588, 012034 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. J. Yang, W. Qiu, A measure of risk and a decision-making model based on expected utility and entropy. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 164, 792–799 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie Pendrill
    • 1
  1. 1.PartilleSweden

Personalised recommendations