Possible Sources Of Error Measurement
Contents |
assumes that any observation is composed of the true value plus some random error value. But is that reasonable? What if all different types of errors in measurement error is not random? Isn't it possible that some errors are types of sources of error systematic, that they hold across most or all of the members of a group? One way to sources of error in measurement in research methodology deal with this notion is to revise the simple true score model by dividing the error component into two subcomponents, random error and systematic error. here, we'll look at
Common Sources Of Error In Chemistry Labs
the differences between these two types of errors and try to diagnose their effects on our research. What is Random Error? Random error is caused by any factors that randomly affect measurement of the variable across the sample. For instance, each person's mood can inflate or deflate their performance on any occasion. In a particular testing, some sources of error in measurement ppt children may be feeling in a good mood and others may be depressed. If mood affects their performance on the measure, it may artificially inflate the observed scores for some children and artificially deflate them for others. The important thing about random error is that it does not have any consistent effects across the entire sample. Instead, it pushes observed scores up or down randomly. This means that if we could see all of the random errors in a distribution they would have to sum to 0 -- there would be as many negative errors as positive ones. The important property of random error is that it adds variability to the data but does not affect average performance for the group. Because of this, random error is sometimes considered noise. What is Systematic Error? Systematic error is caused by any factors that systematically affect measurement of the variable across the sample. For instance, if there is loud traffic going by just outside of a classroom where students are takin
quantity that arises as a result of the process of measurement or approximation. Another term for error is uncertainty. Physical quantities such as weight, volume, temperature, speed, or time must all be measured by an instrument sources of error in experiments of one sort or another. No matter how accurate the measuring tool—be it an
Sources Of Error In Physics
atomic clock that determines time based on atomic oscillation or a laser interferometer that measures distance to a fraction of a
Sources Of Errors In English Language
wavelength of light some finite amount of uncertainty is involved in the measurement. Thus, a measured quantity is only as accurate as the error involved in the measuring process. In other words, the error, or http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/measerr.php uncertainty, of a measurement is as important as the measurement itself. As an example, imagine trying to measure the volume of water in a bathtub. Using a gallon bucket as a measuring tool, it would only be possible to measure the volume accurately to the nearest full bucket, or gallon. Any fractional gallon of water remaining would be added as an estimated volume. Thus, the value given for the volume http://science.jrank.org/pages/2570/Error.html would have a potential error or uncertainty of something less than a bucket. Now suppose the bucket were scribed with lines dividing it into quarters. Given the resolving power of the human eye, it is possible to make a good guess of the measurement to the nearest quarter gallon, but the guess could be affected by factors such as viewing angle, accuracy of the scribing, tilts in the surface holding the bucket, etc. Thus, a measurement that appeared to be 6.5 gal (24.6 l) could be in error by as much as one quarter of a gallon, and might actually be closer to 6.25 gal (23.6 l) or 6.75 gal (25.5 l). To express this uncertainty in the measurement process, one would write the volume as 6.5 gallons +/-0.25 gallons. As the resolution of the measurement increases, the accuracy increases and the error decreases. For example, if the measurement were performed again using a cup as the unit of measure, the resultant volume would be more accurate because the fractional unit of water remain ing—less than a cup—would be a smaller volume than the fractional gallon. If a teaspoon were used as a measuring unit, the volume measurement would be even more accurate, and so on. As the examp
is often not met with in entirety. As such, the researcher must be aware about the sources of error in measurement. Following are listed the possible http://blog.reseapro.com/2013/01/sources-of-error-in-measurement/ sources of error in measurement. a) Respondent: At times the respondent may be reluctant to express strong negative feelings or it is just possible that he may have very little knowledge, but may not admit his ignorance. All this reluctance is likely to result in an interview of ‘guesses.' Transient factors like fatigue, boredom, anxiety, etc. may limit the ability of the of error respondent to respond accurately and fully. b) Situation: Situational factors may also come in the way of correct measurement. Any condition which places a strain on interview can have serious effects on the interviewer-respondent rapport. E.g., if someone else is present, he can distort responses by joining in or merely by being present. If the respondent feels that anonymity is not assured, sources of error he may be reluctant to express certain feelings. c) Measurer: The interviewer can distort responses by rewording or reordering questions. His behavior, style and looks may encourage or discourage certain replies from respondents. Careless mechanical processing may distort the findings. Errors may also creep in because of incorrect coding, faulty tabulation and/or statistical calculations, particularly in the data-analysis stage. d) Instrument: Error may arise because of the defective measuring instrument. The use of complex words, beyond the comprehension of the respondent, ambiguous meanings, poor printing, inadequate space for replies, response choice omissions, etc. are a few things that make the measuring instrument defective and may result in measurement errors. Hence, researcher must know that correct measurement depends on successfully meeting all of the issues mentioned above. He must, as far as possible, try to eliminate, neutralize or otherwise deal with all the possible sources of error so that the final results may not be contaminated. Tweet This entry was posted in Education, Schools and Universities, Science and Technology, Writing and tagged editing, error in measurement, instrument, journal, manuscript, measurer, research paper, respondent, situatio