The Proficiency Testing page logs the laboratory's participation in proficiency testing (PT) schemes and inter-laboratory comparisons, per ISO 17025 §7.7.2.
| Button | Action |
|---|---|
| Add — Create a new record | |
| Columns — Show/hide table columns | |
| Filters — Open/close the filter panel. A red dot indicates active filters | |
| Export CSV — Download table data as a CSV file | |
| Orientation — Toggle between portrait and landscape printing | |
| Print — Generate a PDF of the current view | |
| Help — Open the help dialog | |
| Search — Quick search through table data |
Clicking the icon on each row shows:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| PT No. | Unique proficiency test code. Leave blank for auto-numbering. |
| Provider | The organisation conducting the proficiency test |
| Round | Round identifier (for example YYYY-R1) |
| Test Date | Date the analysis was performed |
| Method | The laboratory method evaluated |
| Assigned Value | The reference value provided by the provider |
| Measured Value | The value measured by the laboratory |
| z-Score | Statistical performance measure (hidden column) |
| Lab uncertainty (U_lab) · Assigned-value uncertainty (U_ref) | The two uncertainties En is derived from |
| En (normalized error) | Computed automatically — see below |
| Participation Type | A proficiency-testing scheme or an interlaboratory comparison — see below |
| Area of Technical Competence | Which part of the accreditation scope this round covers |
| Analyst | Who performed the analysis |
| Status | Evaluation: Satisfactory, Questionable or Unsatisfactory |
| Certificate No. | Participation certificate number (hidden column) |
| Notes | Additional remarks |
They are not the same thing, and the record tells them apart through Participation Type.
A proficiency-testing scheme is run by a provider holding ISO/IEC 17043. An interlaboratory comparison can be organised by the laboratory itself together with others. The organiser of a comparison is not a PT provider — it need not hold ISO/IEC 17043 — which is why the two lists are not merged, and why the organiser field stays empty for a self-organised comparison.
Choosing an interlaboratory comparison reveals two further fields:
| Field | Why |
|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 17043:2023 applied | ILAC-P9 §5(7) — a self-organised comparison used as validity evidence should apply the standard |
| Validity Evidence (document) | The controlled document that shows it: protocol, statistical design, outcome report |
Status is not picked while a score exists. It is computed, per ISO 13528, from either of two sources:
A manual selection applies only while no score has been entered; as soon as one exists, the computation replaces it. A line below the field says which source it came from.
En compares the difference from the assigned value against the uncertainties on both sides:
En = (x_lab − x_ref) / √(U_lab² + U_ref²)
Fill in the lab uncertainty and the assigned-value uncertainty and En computes itself. It is the right measure when the provider states an uncertainty for the assigned value, because a z-score then ignores half the information.
When a round ends up Unsatisfactory, a linked Deviation opens automatically (§8.7) for root-cause investigation.
The score is not the evaluation. From the row menu, Round evaluation opens a dialog showing the method, provider, round and the scores, and asks for written text — it will not save empty.
The four questions it expects (Eurachem EPT §8.2.2) are shown inside the dialog: is the reported result ours? is the standard deviation for proficiency assessment fit for purpose? what does the score mean for the method? what follows?
Once a record has been evaluated, an "Evaluated" line shows at the top of the edit dialog.
Points at — this page does not stand without these:
Used by — a change here shows up in these: