Annotation: Inter-laboratory comparisons for calibration laboratories (CL) are carried out by competent providers. For assessment the results of CL participation in such tests used the criteria set by the test coordinators for the quality of calibration for a particular type of measurement shall be used. The main task of the provider is to establish the reference value of the measured value and its uncertainty. Inter-laboratory comparisons by the CL are based on three main types of test organization, where the coordinators – providers (reference laboratories) can be: National Metrology Institutes (NMI); accredited CL; accredited providers that are not NMI or accredited CL. To check the consistency of the results of inter-laboratory comparisons using the χ2 criterion is proposed.
1. Velychko, O. and Gordiyenko, T. (2010), The implementation of general guides and standards on regional level in the field of metrology, Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, Vol. 238, No. 1, 012044, IOP Publication, 6 p.
2. Velychko, O. and Gordiyenko, T. (2015), The estimation of the measurement results with using statistical methods, Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, Vol. 588, 012017, IOP Publication, 6 p.
3. Velychko, O. and Gordiyenko, T. (2015), Evaluation of competence of the experts in field of metrology and instrumenta-tions, XXI IMEKO World Congress “Measurement in Research and Industry”, Prague, Czech Republic, 5 p.
4. Velychko, O., Shevkun, S., Gordiyenko, T. and Mescheriak, O. (2018), Interlaboratory comparisons of the calibration re-sults of time meters, Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, No. 1/9 (91), pp. 4-11.
5. ISO (2005), ISO/IEC 17025 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
6. ISO (2010), EN ISO/IEC 17043 Conformity assessment. General requirements for testing laboratory qualifications.
7. ISO (2005), ISO 13528 Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons.
8. Efremova, N.Yu. and Chunovkina, А.G. (2007), Experience in evaluating the data of inter-laboratory comparisons for calibration and verification laboratories, Measurement Techniques, 50, 6, рр. 584-592.
9. Chunovkina, A., Zviagin, N. and Burmistrova, N. (2012), Interlaboratory comparisons. Practical approach for data evaluation, XX IMEKO World Congress “Metrology for Green Growth”, Busan, Republic of Korea, 5 р.
10. Jackson G.S., Muzikar, P. and Goehring, B. (2015), A Bayesian approach to an interlaboratory comparison, Chemomet-rics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, Vol. 141, pp. 94-99.
11. Briggs, P. (2012), Proficiency testing for calibration laboratories, XX IMEKO World Congress “Metrology for Green Growth”, Busan, Republic of Korea, 5 р.
12. Acko, B., Brezovnik, S. and Sluban, B. (2014), Verification of Software Applications for Evaluating Interlaboratory Comparison Results, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 69, pp. 263-272.
13. Beckert, S.F. and Fischer, G.E. (2018), Interlaboratory comparison of roughness measurement: Application of Algo-rithm A of ISO 13528: 2015 in determining the designated value and the standard deviation, XXII IMEKO World Congress “Knowledge Through Measurement”, Belfast, UK, 4 p.
14. Efremova, N.Yu. and Kachur, S.A. (2006), “Оsobennosti analiza dannykh mezhlaboratornykh slicheniy, provodimykh v akreditovannyh kalibrovochnyh laboratoriyah” [Features of data analysis of interlaboratory comparisons conducted in accredited calibration laboratories], Information Processing Systems, No. 7 (56), pp. 22-25.
15. Bermanec, L.G. and Zvizdic, D. (2015), Interlaboratory comparison in the pressure range from 0 to 2 MPa for accred-ited calibration laboratories, Int. J. Metrol. Qual. Eng., Vol. 6, No. 3, 307. https://doi.org/10.1051/ijmqe/2015021.
16. Furuichi, N., Terao, Y., Ogawa, S., Cordova, L. and Shimada, T. (2016), Inter-laboratory comparison of small water flow calibration facilities with extremely low uncertainty, Measurement, Vol. 91, pp. 548-556.
17. Anghel, M.-A., Sălceanu, A., Iacobescu, F. and Poenaru, M.M. (2018), Flow rate quality assessment through interlabo-ratories comparison, XXII IMEKO World Congress “Knowledge Through Measurement”, Belfast, UK, 4 p.
18. Poenaru, M.M., Iacobescu, F., Anghel, A.-C., Sălceanu, A. and Anghel, M.-A. (2016), Active power quality assessment through interlaboratories comparison, 21th IMEKO TC4 International Symposium “Understanding the World through Electrical and Electronic Measurement”, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 224-228.
19. Petkova, Т.P., Khristov, I.К., Borisov, B.I. and Petrov, S.Т. (2013), “Оtsenka takhnicheskoy kompetentnosti pos-redstvom uchastiya v mezhlaboratornikh slicheniyah” [Assessment of technical competence through participation in interlaboratory comparisons], Information Processing Systems, No. 3 (110), pp. 82-85.
20. Iacobescu, F., Poenaru, M.-M. and Anghel, M.-A. (2017), Reactive Power Quality Assessment through Interlaborato-ries Comparison, 22th IMEKO TC 4 Symposium “Supporting World development through electrical and electronic measure-ments”, Iasi, Romania, pp. 13-19.
21. Poenaru, M.-M., Iacobescu, F. and Anghel, M.-A. (2017), Length сalibration Quality assessment through Interlaborato-ries Comparison, 22th IMEKO TC 4 Symposium “Supporting World development through electrical and electronic measure-ments”, Iasi, Romania, pp. 20-26.
22. Poenaru, M.-M., Iacobescu, F. and Anghel, M.-A. (2017), Pressure Calibration Quality Assessment through Interlabo-ratories Comparison, 22th IMEKO TC 4 Symposium “Supporting World development through electrical and electronic measure-ments”, Iasi, Romania, pp. 27-32.
23. Sălceanu, A., Anghel, M.-A., Iacobescu, F. and Poenaru, M.M. (2018), Vickers hardness quality assessment through in-terlaboratories comparison, XXII IMEKO World Congress “Knowledge Through Measurement”, Belfast, UK, 4 p.
24. Claudio, J. and Costa, M. (2012), Brazilian energy interlaboratory program applicative, XX IMEKO World Congress “Metrology for Green Growth”, Busan, Republic of Korea, 6 p.
25. Sandu, I. and Dragomir, L. (2007), Interlaboratory comparison, 15th IMEKO TC 4 Symposium on Novelties in Electri-cal Measurements and Instrumentations, Iasi, Romania, 4 p.
26. Sousa, J.J.L., Leitão, L.T.S., Costa, M.M. and Faria, M.C. (2012), Considerations on the influence of travelling stan-dards instability in an interlaboratory comparison program, XX IMEKO World Congress “Metrology for Green Growth”, Busan, Republic of Korea, 4 p.
27. ISO (2008), ISO/IEC Guide 98-3, Uncertainty of measurement. – Part 3. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995).
28. EA (2013), EA-4/02. M Evaluation of the Uncertainty of Measurement In Calibration.
29. BIPM (2013), CIPM MRA-D-05. Measurement comparisons in the context of the CIPM MRA.
30. BIPM (2013), CIPM MRA-D-04 Calibration and Measurement Capabilities in the context of the CIPM MRA.
31. ILAC (2002), ILAC P-10. ILAC Policy on Traceability of Measurement Results.
32. EA (2001), EA-2/10. EA Policy for Participation in National and International Proficiency Testing Activities.
33. Cox, M.G. (2002), The evaluation of key comparison data, Metrologia, Vol. 39, pp. 589-595.
34. Cox, M.G. (2007), The evaluation of key comparison data: determining the largest consistent subset, Metrologia, Vol. 44, pp. 187-200.
35. Mana, G., Massa, E. and Predescu, M. (2012), Model selection in the average of inconsistent data: an analysis of the measured Planck-constant values, Metrologia, Vol. 49, pp. 492-500.
36. CООМЕТ (2016), CООМЕТ R/GM/14. Guidelines on COOMET key comparison evaluation.
37. CООМЕТ (2016). CООМЕТ R/GM/19. Guidelines on COOMET supplementary comparison evaluation.
38. Velychko, O. and Gordiyenko, T. (2018), Linking Results of International Comparisons of the National Standard and the National Inter-Laboratory Comparisons, Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, Vol. 1065, 072004, IOP Publication, 4 p.