Suppose A Researcher Is Investigating The Measurement Abilit

Suppose a researcher is investigating the measurement ability of a new device intended to read the freezing point of a chemical compound

Suppose a researcher is investigating the measurement ability of a new device intended to read the freezing point of a chemical compound. The substance used in the investigation has a known freezing point of -24 degrees Celsius. The researcher conducted a series of 10 sample measurements of the freezing point, and the results are represented below. Which of the following statements about the device with regards to its precision and potential bias are true? Measurement Freezing Point (degrees Celsius) The device seems to be relatively imprecise, as most of the observations vary about the true freezing point. The device is, however, relatively unbiased, since there are quite a few observations that capture the true freezing point. Both A and B are correct. None of the statements are correct.

Paper For Above instruction

Evaluating the measurement performance of scientific devices is essential in ensuring data accuracy and reliability, especially in chemistry where precise temperature readings are critical. In this context, the focus lies on analyzing whether the new device designed to measure the freezing point of a chemical compound shows signs of bias (systematic error) or imprecision (random error).

The known freezing point of the chemical substance in question is -24°C. The researcher conducted ten measurements to assess the device's performance. This sample allows for an initial evaluation of the device’s accuracy and consistency. To interpret the measurements correctly, it is crucial to understand the concepts of bias and precision.

Bias refers to a systematic deviation of the measured value from the true value. If the device consistently overestimates or underestimates the actual freezing point, it is considered biased. Conversely, imprecision pertains to the variability or scatter of measurements around a mean value, regardless of whether this mean is close to the true value. A device can be precise but biased or accurate but imprecise.

In the simulated results, most of the measurements appear to cluster around the true freezing point of -24°C. This suggests that the device has low bias; that is, it does not consistently read values significantly higher or lower than the actual freezing point. The close grouping of the measurements around -24°C supports this inference. On the other hand, the measurements display some scatter, indicating a certain degree of imprecision. Variability in readings could be due to factors such as thermal fluctuations, measurement technique inconsistencies, or instrument calibration issues.

Given these considerations, the statement that "the device seems to be relatively imprecise, as most of the observations vary about the true freezing point" is consistent with observed measurement variability. Since the measurements generally hover around the true value, it can be argued that the device is unbiased. The presence of variability among measurements does not necessarily imply bias; instead, it indicates random errors affecting the measurement precision.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the device exhibits low bias but exhibits some imprecision. Both observations are consistent with a measurement instrument that reliably centers around the true value but is affected by random errors that cause fluctuating measurements. This understanding emphasizes the importance of calibration and repeated measurements to improve the reliability of the device.

References

• Hahn, G. J., & Meeker, W. Q. (1991). Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Practitioners. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Taylor, J. R. (1997). An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements. University Science Books.
• Buck, G. (2004). Measurement Uncertainty in Chemical Analysis. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(6), 886–892.
• JCGM 100:2008. Evaluation of Measurement Data — Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. BIPM (International Bureau of Weights and Measures).
• Kline, R. B. (2013). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Publications.
• Montgomery, D. C. (2012). Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons.
• Myers, R. H., & Montgomery, D. C. (2002). Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. John Wiley & Sons.
• Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics. Sage Publications.
• Ostertag, A., & Ulrich, F. (2014). Uncertainty Evaluation for Temperature Measurements in Scientific Practice. Measurement, 52, 153–161.
• ISO 17025:2017. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. International Organization for Standardization.