Isoiec 17043

BRITISH STANDARD BS EN ISO/IEC
17043:2010
Licensed Copy: Mr Tom Carr, British Standards Institution, 17/06/2010 14:55, Uncontrolled Copy, (c) BSI
Conformity
assessment — General
requirements for
proficiency testing
(ISO/CASCO
17043:2010)
ICS 03.120.20
NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW

BS EN ISO/IEC 17043:2010
National foreword
This British Standard is the UK implementation of EN ISO/IEC

17043:2010. It supersedes PD 6644-1:1999 and PD 6644-2:1999 which
are withdrawn.
The UK participation in its preparation was entrusted to Technical
Committee CAS/1/-/28, Proficiency testing by interlaboratory
comparisons.
A list of organizations represented on this committee can be obtained on
request to its secretary.
This publication does not purport to include all the necessary provisions
of a contract. Users are responsible for its correct application.
Compliance with a British Standard cannot confer immunity
from legal obligations.
This British Standard was Amendments/corrigenda issued since publication

published under the
authority of the Standards
Policy and Strategy Date Comments
Committee on 31 May
2010
© BSI 2010
ISBN 978 0 580 56522 9

EUROPEAN STANDARD EN ISO/IEC 17043
NORME EUROPÉENNE
EUROPÄISCHE NORM February 2010
ICS 03.120.20
English version
Conformity assessment - General requirements for proficiency

testing (ISO/CASCO 17043:2010)
Évaluation de la conformité - Exigences générales Konformitätsbewertung - Allgemeine Anforderungen an

concernant les essais d'aptitude (ISO/CASCO 17043:2010) Eignungsprüfungen (ISO/CASCO 17043:2010)
This European Standard was approved by CEN on 30 January 2010.
CEN and CENELEC members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving
this European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references concerning
such national standards may be obtained on application to the CEN Management Centre or to any CEN and CENELEC member.
This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by translation
under the responsibility of a CEN and CENELEC member into its own language and notified to the CEN Management Centre has the same
status as the official versions.
CEN and CENELEC members are the national standards bodies and national electrotechnical committees of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United
Kingdom.
CEN Management Centre: CENELEC Central Secretariat:

Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
© 2010 CEN/CENELEC All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. EN ISO/IEC 17043:2010 E
worldwide for CEN national Members and for CENELEC
Members.
EN ISO/IEC 17043:2010 (E)
Foreword
This document (EN ISO/IEC 17043:2010) has been prepared by Technical Committee ISO/CASCO
"Committee on conformity assessment" in collaboration with Technical Committee CEN/CLC/TC 1 "Criteria for
conformity assessment bodies", the secretariat of which is held by BSI.
This European Standard shall be given the status of a national standard, either by publication of an identical
text or by endorsement, at the latest by August 2010, and conflicting national standards shall be withdrawn at
the latest by August 2010.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. CEN [and/or CENELEC] shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
According to the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organizations of the following
countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Endorsement notice
The text of ISO/CASCO 17043:2010 has been approved by CEN as a EN ISO/IEC 17043:2010 without any
modification.
3
ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
Contents Page
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................iv
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................v
1 Scope ......................................................................................................................................................1
2 Normative references............................................................................................................................1
3 Terms and definitions ...........................................................................................................................1
4 Technical Requirements .......................................................................................................................4
4.1 General ...................................................................................................................................................4
4.2 Personnel ...............................................................................................................................................4
4.3 Equipment, accommodation and environment ..................................................................................5
4.4 Design of proficiency testing schemes...............................................................................................6
4.5 Choice of method or procedure .........................................................................................................10
4.6 Operation of proficiency testing schemes........................................................................................11
4.7 Data analysis and evaluation of proficiency testing scheme results ............................................12
4.8 Reports .................................................................................................................................................13
4.9 Communication with participants......................................................................................................14
4.10 Confidentiality......................................................................................................................................15
5 Management requirements.................................................................................................................15
5.1 Organization.........................................................................................................................................15
5.2 Management system ...........................................................................................................................16
5.3 Document control................................................................................................................................17
5.4 Review of requests, tenders and contracts ......................................................................................18
5.5 Subcontracting services.....................................................................................................................19
5.6 Purchasing services and supplies ....................................................................................................19
5.7 Service to the customer......................................................................................................................20
5.8 Complaints and appeals .....................................................................................................................20
5.9 Control of nonconforming work ........................................................................................................20
5.10 Improvement ........................................................................................................................................20
5.11 Corrective actions ...............................................................................................................................21
5.12 Preventive actions...............................................................................................................................21
5.13 Control of records ...............................................................................................................................22
5.14 Internal audits ......................................................................................................................................22
5.15 Management reviews ..........................................................................................................................23
Annex A (informative) Types of proficiency testing schemes .....................................................................24
Annex B (informative) Statistical methods for proficiency testing..............................................................28
Annex C (informative) Selection and use of proficiency testing..................................................................35
Bibliography......................................................................................................................................................39
© ISO 2010 — All rights reserved iii

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) and IEC (the International Electrotechnical
Commission) form the specialized system for worldwide standardization. National bodies that are members of
ISO or IEC participate in the development of International Standards through technical committees
established by the respective organization to deal with particular fields of technical activity. ISO and IEC
technical committees collaborate in fields of mutual interest. Other international organizations, governmental
and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO and IEC, also take part in the work. In the field of conformity
assessment, the ISO Committee on conformity assessment (CASCO) is responsible for the development of
International Standards and Guides.
International Standards are drafted in accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2.
Draft International Standards are circulated to the national bodies for voting. Publication as an International
Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the national bodies casting a vote.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
ISO/IEC 17043 was prepared by the ISO Committee on conformity assessment (CASCO).
It was circulated for voting to the national bodies of both ISO and IEC, and was approved by both
organizations.
This first edition of ISO/IEC 17043 cancels and replaces ISO/IEC Guide 43-1:1997 and
ISO/IEC Guide 43-2:1997, which have been technically revised.
iv © ISO 2010 — All rights reserved

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
Introduction
Interlaboratory comparisons are widely used for a number of purposes and their use is increasing
internationally. Typical purposes for interlaboratory comparisons include:
a) evaluation of the performance of laboratories for specific tests or measurements and monitoring
laboratories' continuing performance;
b) identification of problems in laboratories and initiation of actions for improvement which, for example, may
be related to inadequate test or measurement procedures, effectiveness of staff training and supervision,
or calibration of equipment;
c) establishment of the effectiveness and comparability of test or measurement methods;
d) provision of additional confidence to laboratory customers;
e) identification of interlaboratory differences;
f) education of participating laboratories based on the outcomes of such comparisons;
g) validation of uncertainty claims;
h) evaluation of the performance characteristics of a method – often described as collaborative trials;
i) assignment of values to reference materials and assessment of their suitability for use in specific test or
measurement procedures; and
j) support for statements of the equivalence of measurements of National Metrology Institutes through “key
comparisons” and supplementary comparisons conducted on behalf of the International Bureau of
Weights and Measurement (BIPM) and associated regional metrology organizations.
Proficiency testing involves the use of interlaboratory comparisons for the determination of laboratory
performance, as listed in a) to g) above. Proficiency testing does not usually address h), i) and j) because
laboratory competence is assumed in these applications, but these applications can be used to provide
independent demonstrations of laboratory competence. The requirements of this International Standard can
be applied to many of the technical planning and operational activities for h), i) and j).
The need for ongoing confidence in laboratory performance is not only essential for laboratories and their
customers but also for other interested parties, such as regulators, laboratory accreditation bodies and other
organizations that specify requirements for laboratories. ISO/IEC 17011 requires accreditation bodies to take
account of laboratories' participation and performance in proficiency testing. There is a growing need for
proficiency testing for other conformity assessment activities, such as inspection or product certification. Most
of the requirements in this International Standard apply to those evolving areas, especially regarding
management, planning and design, personnel, assuring quality, confidentiality, and other aspects, as
appropriate.
This International Standard has been prepared to provide a consistent basis for all interested parties to
determine the competence of organizations that provide proficiency testing. In doing so it replaces both parts
of ISO/IEC Guide 43:1997. ISO/IEC Guide 43 included not only guidance on development and operation of
proficiency testing and selection and use of proficiency testing by laboratory accreditation bodies, but also
useful descriptions of typical types of proficiency testing. This International Standard has preserved and
updated the principles for the operation of proficiency testing described in ISO/IEC Guide 43 and has retained
in Annexes A to C information on typical types of proficiency testing schemes, guidance on appropriate
statistical methods, selection and use of proficiency testing schemes by laboratories, accreditation bodies,
regulatory bodies, and other interested parties.
© ISO 2010 — All rights reserved v

INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
Conformity assessment — General requirements for proficiency

testing
1 Scope
This International Standard specifies general requirements for the competence of providers of proficiency
testing schemes and for the development and operation of proficiency testing schemes. These requirements
are intended to be general for all types of proficiency testing schemes, and they can be used as a basis for
specific technical requirements for particular fields of application.
2 Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For dated
references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced
document (including any amendments) applies.
ISO/IEC 17000:2004, Conformity assessment — Vocabulary and general principles
ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007, International vocabulary of metrology — Basic and general concepts and associated
terms (VIM)
3 Terms and definitions

For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO/IEC 17000:2004,
ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007 and the following apply.
3.1
assigned value
value attributed to a particular property of a proficiency test item
3.2
coordinator
one or more individuals with responsibility for organizing and managing all of the activities involved in the
operation of a proficiency testing scheme
3.3
customer
organization or individual for which a proficiency testing scheme is provided through a contractual
arrangement
3.4
interlaboratory comparison
organization, performance and evaluation of measurements or tests on the same or similar items by two or
more laboratories in accordance with predetermined conditions
© ISO 2010 — All rights reserved 1

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
3.5
outlier
observation in a set of data that appears to be inconsistent with the remainder of that set
NOTE An outlier can originate from a different population or be the result of an incorrect recording or other gross
error.
3.6
participant
laboratory, organization or individual that receives proficiency test items and submits results for review by the
proficiency testing provider
NOTE In some cases, the participant can be an inspection body.
3.7
proficiency testing
evaluation of participant performance against pre-established criteria by means of interlaboratory comparisons
NOTE 1 For the purposes of this International Standard, the term “proficiency testing” is taken in its widest sense and
includes, but is not limited to:
a) quantitative scheme — where the objective is to quantify one or more measurands of the proficiency test item;
b) qualitative scheme — where the objective is to identify or describe one or more characteristics of the proficiency test
item;
c) sequential scheme — where one or more proficiency test items are distributed sequentially for testing or
measurement and returned to the proficiency testing provider at intervals;
d) simultaneous scheme — where proficiency test items are distributed for concurrent testing or measurement within a
defined time period;
e) single occasion exercise — where proficiency test items are provided on a single occasion;
f) continuous scheme — where proficiency test items are provided at regular intervals;
g) sampling — where samples are taken for subsequent analysis; and
h) data transformation and interpretation — where sets of data or other information are furnished and the information is
processed to provide an interpretation (or other outcome).
NOTE 2 Some providers of proficiency testing in the medical area use the term “External Quality Assessment (EQA)”
for their proficiency testing schemes, or for their broader programmes, or both (see Annex A). The requirements of this
International Standard cover only those EQA activities that meet the definition of proficiency testing.
3.8
proficiency test item
sample, product, artefact, reference material, piece of equipment, measurement standard, data set or other
information used for proficiency testing
3.9
proficiency testing provider
organization which takes responsibility for all tasks in the development and operation of a proficiency testing
scheme
3.10
proficiency testing round
single complete sequence of distribution of proficiency test items, and the evaluation and reporting of results
to the participants
2 © ISO 2010 — All rights reserved

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
3.11
proficiency testing scheme
proficiency testing designed and operated in one or more rounds for a specified area of testing, measurement,
calibration or inspection
NOTE A proficiency testing scheme might cover a particular type of test, calibration, inspection or a number of tests,
calibrations or inspections on proficiency test items.
3.12
robust statistical method
statistical method insensitive to small departures from underlying assumptions surrounding an underlying
probabilistic model
3.13
standard deviation for proficiency assessment
measure of dispersion used in the evaluation of results of proficiency testing, based on the available
information
NOTE 1 The standard deviation applies only to ratio and differential scale results.
NOTE 2 Not all proficiency testing schemes evaluate proficiency based on the dispersion of results.
3.14
subcontractor
organization or individual engaged by the proficiency testing provider to perform activities specified in this
International Standard and that affect the quality of a proficiency testing scheme
NOTE The term “subcontractor” includes what many proficiency testing providers call collaborators.
3.15
metrological traceability
property of a measurement result whereby the result can be related to a reference through a documented
unbroken chain of calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty
NOTE 1 For this definition, a “reference” can be a definition of a measurement unit through its practical realization, or a
measurement procedure including the measurement unit for a non-ordinal quantity, or a measurement standard.
NOTE 2 Metrological traceability requires an established calibration hierarchy.
NOTE 3 Specification of the reference must include the time at which this reference was used in establishing the
calibration hierarchy, along with any other relevant metrological information about the reference, such as when the first
calibration in the calibration hierarchy was performed.
NOTE 4 For measurements with more than one input quantity in the measurement model, each of the input quantity
values should itself be metrologically traceable and the calibration hierarchy involved may form a branched structure or a
network. The effort involved in establishing metrological traceability for each input quantity value should be commensurate
with its relative contribution to the measurement result.
NOTE 5 Metrological traceability of a measurement result does not ensure that the measurement uncertainty is
adequate for a given purpose or that there is an absence of mistakes.
NOTE 6 A comparison between two measurement standards may be viewed as a calibration if the comparison is used
to check and, if necessary, correct the quantity value and measurement uncertainty attributed to one of the measurement
standards.
NOTE 7 The ILAC1) considers the elements for confirming metrological traceability to be an unbroken metrological
traceability chain to an international measurement standard or a national measurement standard, a documented
measurement uncertainty, a documented measurement procedure, accredited technical competence, metrological
traceability to the SI, and calibration intervals (see ILAC P-10:2002).
1) International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
NOTE 8 The abbreviated term “traceability” is sometimes used to mean “metrological traceability” as well as other
concepts, such as “sample traceability” or “document traceability” or “instrument traceability” or “material traceability”,
where the history (“trace”) of an item is meant. Therefore, the full term of “metrological traceability” is preferred if there is
any risk of confusion.
[ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007, definition 2.41]
3.16
measurement uncertainty
uncertainty of measurement
uncertainty
non-negative parameter characterizing the dispersion of the quantity values being attributed to a measurand,
based on the information used
NOTE 1 Measurement uncertainty includes components arising from systematic effects, such as components
associated with corrections and the assigned quantity values of measurement standards, as well as the definitional
uncertainty. Sometimes estimated systematic effects are not corrected for but, instead, associated measurement
uncertainty components are incorporated.
NOTE 2 The parameter may be, for example, a standard deviation called standard measurement uncertainty (or a
specified multiple of it), or the half-width of an interval, having a stated coverage probability.
NOTE 3 Measurement uncertainty comprises, in general, many components. Some of these may be evaluated by
Type A evaluation of measurement uncertainty from the statistical distribution of the quantity values from series of
measurements and can be characterized by standard deviations. The other components, which may be evaluated by
Type B evaluation of measurement uncertainty, can also be characterized by standard deviations, evaluated from
probability density functions based on experience or other information.
NOTE 4 In general, for a given set of information, it is understood that the measurement uncertainty is associated with
a stated quantity value attributed to the measurand. A modification of this value results in a modification of the associated
uncertainty.
[ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007, definition 2.26]
4 Technical Requirements
4.1 General
The development and operation of proficiency testing schemes shall be undertaken by proficiency testing
providers having competence to conduct interlaboratory comparisons and access to expertise with the
particular type of proficiency test items. Proficiency testing providers or their subcontractors shall also have
competence in the measurement of the properties being determined.
NOTE ISO/IEC 17025 or ISO 15189 can be used to demonstrate the competence of a proficiency testing provider's
laboratory, or the laboratory subcontracted to perform tests or measurements related to the proficiency testing schemes.
ISO Guide 34 can be used to demonstrate the competence of producers of reference materials that provide proficiency
test items.
4.2 Personnel
4.2.1 The proficiency testing provider shall have managerial and technical personnel with the necessary
authority, resources and technical competence required to perform their duties.
4.2.2 The proficiency testing provider's management shall define the minimum levels of qualification and
experience necessary for the key positions within its organization and ensure those qualifications are met.
4.2.3 The proficiency testing provider shall use personnel who are either employed by, or under contract to
it. Where contracted and additional technical and key support personnel are used, the proficiency testing
provider shall ensure that such personnel are supervised and competent and that they work in accordance
with the management system.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
NOTE Where technical experts are used on an ad-hoc basis or as part of an advisory or steering group (see 4.4.1.4),
the existence of formal agreements through, for example, group terms of reference or other means, can be considered to
satisfy this requirement.
4.2.4 The proficiency testing provider shall authorize specific personnel to:
a) select appropriate proficiency test items;
b) plan proficiency testing schemes;
c) perform particular types of sampling;
d) operate specific equipment;
e) conduct measurements to determine stability and homogeneity, as well as assigned values and
associated uncertainties of the measurands of the proficiency test item;
f) prepare, handle and distribute proficiency test items;
g) operate the data processing system;
h) conduct statistical analysis;
i) evaluate the performance of proficiency testing participants;
j) give opinions and interpretations; and
k) authorize the issue of proficiency testing reports.
4.2.5 The proficiency testing provider shall maintain up-to-date records of the relevant authorization(s),
competence, educational and professional qualifications, training, skills and experience of all technical
personnel, including contracted personnel. This information shall be readily available and shall include the
date on which competence to perform their assigned tasks was assessed and confirmed.
4.2.6 The proficiency testing provider shall formulate the objectives with respect to the education, training,
and skills for each staff member involved with the operation of the proficiency testing scheme. The proficiency
testing provider shall have a policy and procedures for identifying training needs and providing training of
personnel. The training programme shall be relevant to the present and anticipated needs of the proficiency
testing provider.
NOTE It is advisable to consider the need to retrain staff periodically. Staff training policies can take account of
technological change, the need to demonstrate ongoing competence and aim at continual skills upgrading.
4.2.7 The proficiency testing provider shall ensure that staff receive the necessary training to ensure
competent performance of measurements, operation of equipment and any other activities which affect the
quality of the proficiency testing scheme. The effectiveness of training activities shall be evaluated.
NOTE Objective measures can be used to assess the attainment of competence.
4.3 Equipment, accommodation and environment
4.3.1 The proficiency testing provider shall ensure that there is appropriate accommodation for the
operation of the proficiency testing scheme. This includes facilities and equipment for proficiency test item
manufacturing, handling, calibration, testing, storage and despatch, for data processing, for communications,
and for retrieval of materials and records.
4.3.2 The proficiency testing provider shall ensure that the environmental conditions do not compromise the
proficiency testing scheme or the required quality of operations. Particular care shall be taken when
operations are undertaken at sites away from the proficiency testing provider's permanent facilities or are

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
undertaken by subcontractors. The technical requirements for accommodation and environmental conditions
that can affect the proficiency testing shall be documented.
4.3.3 Access to and use of areas affecting the quality of proficiency testing schemes shall be controlled.
The proficiency testing provider shall determine the extent of control based on its particular circumstances.
4.3.4 The proficiency testing provider shall identify environmental conditions that can significantly influence
the quality of the proficiency test items and any testing and calibration carried out, including conditions that are
required by relevant specifications and measurement procedures. The proficiency testing provider shall
control and monitor these conditions, and shall record all relevant monitoring activities. Relevant proficiency
testing activities shall be stopped when the environmental conditions jeopardize the quality or the operations
of the proficiency testing scheme.
NOTE Conditions can include, for example, biological sterility, dust, electromagnetic disturbances, radiation, humidity,
electrical supply, temperature, and sound and vibrations levels, as appropriate to the technical activities concerned.
4.3.5 There shall be effective separation between neighbouring areas in which there are incompatible
activities. Action shall be taken to prevent cross-contamination.
4.3.6 Proficiency testing providers shall ensure that performance characteristics of laboratory methods and
equipment used to confirm the content, homogeneity and stability of proficiency testing items are appropriately
validated and maintained.
4.4 Design of proficiency testing schemes
4.4.1 Planning
4.4.1.1 The proficiency testing provider shall identify and plan those processes which directly affect the
quality of the proficiency testing scheme and shall ensure that they are carried out in accordance with
prescribed procedures.
NOTE Stakeholders' interests can be considered in developing a plan and relevant information.
4.4.1.2 The proficiency testing provider shall not subcontract the planning of the proficiency testing
scheme (see 5.5.2).
NOTE The proficiency testing provider can utilize advice or assistance from any advisors, experts or steering group
(see 4.4.1.4).
4.4.1.3 The proficiency testing provider shall document a plan before commencement of the proficiency
testing scheme that addresses the objectives, purpose and basic design of the proficiency testing scheme,
including the following information and, where appropriate, reasons for its selection or exclusion:
a) the name and address of the proficiency testing provider;
b) the name, address and affiliation of the coordinator and other personnel involved in the design and
operation of the proficiency testing scheme;
c) the activities to be subcontracted and the names and addresses of subcontractors involved in the
operation of the proficiency testing scheme;
d) criteria to be met for participation;
e) the number and type of expected participants in the proficiency testing scheme;
f) selection of the measurand(s) or characteristic(s) of interest, including information on what the

participants are to identify, measure, or test for in the specific proficiency testing round;

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
g) a description of the range of values or characteristics, or both, to be expected for the proficiency test
items;
h) the potential major sources of errors involved in the area of proficiency testing offered;
i) requirements for the production, quality control, storage and distribution of proficiency test items;
j) reasonable precautions to prevent collusion between participants or falsification of results, and

procedures to be employed if collusion or falsification of results is suspected;
k) a description of the information which is to be supplied to participants and the time schedule for the
various phases of the proficiency testing scheme;
l) for continuous proficiency testing schemes, the frequency or dates upon which proficiency test items are
to be distributed to participants, the deadlines for the return of results by participants and, where
appropriate, the dates on which testing or measurement is to be carried out by participants;
m) any information on methods or procedures which participants need to use to prepare the test material and
perform the tests or measurements;
n) procedures for the test or measurement methods to be used for the homogeneity and stability testing of
proficiency test items and, where applicable, to determine their biological viability;
o) preparation of any standardized reporting formats to be used by participants;
p) a detailed description of the statistical analysis to be used;
q) the origin, metrological traceability and measurement uncertainty of any assigned values;
r) criteria for the evaluation of performance of participants;
s) a description of the data, interim reports or information to be returned to participants;
t) a description of the extent to which participant results, and the conclusions that will be based on the
outcome of the proficiency testing scheme, are to be made public; and
u) actions to be taken in the case of lost or damaged proficiency test items.
4.4.1.4 The proficiency testing provider shall have access to the necessary technical expertise and
experience in the relevant field of testing, calibration, sampling or inspection, as well as statistics. This may be
achieved, if necessary, by establishing an advisory group (named as appropriate).
4.4.1.5 Technical expertise shall be used, as appropriate, to determine matters such as the following:
a) planning requirements as listed in 4.4.1.3;
b) identification and resolution of any difficulties expected in the preparation and maintenance of
homogeneous proficiency test items, or in the provision of a stable assigned value for a proficiency test
item;
c) preparation of detailed instructions for participants;
d) comments on any technical difficulties or other remarks raised by participants in previous proficiency
testing rounds;
e) provision of advice in evaluating the performance of participants;
f) comments on the results and performance of participants as a whole and, where appropriate, groups of
participants or individual participants;

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
g) provision of advice for participants (within limits of confidentiality), either individually or within the report;
h) responding to feedback from participants; and
i) planning or participating in technical meetings with participants.
4.4.2 Preparation of proficiency test items
4.4.2.1 The proficiency testing provider shall establish and implement procedures to ensure that
proficiency test items are prepared in accordance with the plan described in 4.4.1.
NOTE It is advisable that the proficiency testing provider give due consideration to the preparation of sufficient
numbers of proficiency test items, in order to allow for the need to replace any such proficiency test items lost or damaged
during distribution, or intended to be provided for use after the results of the proficiency testing scheme have been
evaluated. Such uses can include training aids for participants or use as a reference material.
4.4.2.2 The proficiency testing provider shall establish and implement procedures to ensure appropriate
acquisition, collection, preparation, handling, storage and, where required, disposal of all proficiency test items.
The procedures shall ensure that materials used to manufacture proficiency test items are obtained in
accordance with relevant regulatory and ethical requirements.
4.4.2.3 Proficiency test items should match in terms of matrix, measurands and concentrations, as
closely as practicable, the type of items or materials encountered in routine testing or calibration.
4.4.2.4 In proficiency testing schemes that require participants to prepare or manipulate, or both prepare
and manipulate, the proficiency test item and submit it to the proficiency testing provider, the proficiency
testing provider shall issue instructions for preparation, packaging and transport of the proficiency test item.
4.4.3 Homogeneity and stability
4.4.3.1 Criteria for suitable homogeneity and stability shall be established and shall be based on the
effect that inhomogeneity and instability will have on the evaluation of the participants' performance.
NOTE 1 The requirements in this subclause are intended to ensure that every participant receives comparable
proficiency test items, and that these proficiency test items remain stable throughout the proficiency testing. Careful
planning, manufacture and shipping are necessary to achieve this, and testing is usually needed to confirm it.
NOTE 2 In some cases, it is not feasible for proficiency test items to be subjected to homogeneity and stability testing.
Such cases would include, for example, when limited material is available to prepare proficiency testing items.
NOTE 3 In some cases, materials that are not sufficiently homogeneous or stable are the best available; in such cases,
they can still be useful as proficiency test items, provided that the uncertainties of the assigned values or the evaluation of
results take due account of this (see B.3.1.3 and ISO 13528:2005, Annex B).
NOTE 4 Considerations for homogeneity and stability are further discussed in ISO Guide 34, ISO Guide 35 and
ISO 13528.
4.4.3.2 The procedures for the assessment of homogeneity and stability shall be documented and
conducted, where applicable, in accordance with appropriate statistical designs. Where possible, the
proficiency testing provider shall use a statistically random selection of a representative number of proficiency
test items from the whole batch of test material in order to assess the homogeneity of the material.
NOTE In some cases, the use of a random stratified or systematic selection of proficiency test items from the whole
batch is more appropriate.
4.4.3.3 The assessment of homogeneity shall normally be performed after the proficiency test items have
been packaged in the final form and before distribution to participants unless, for example, stability studies
indicate that they should be stored in bulk form.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
NOTE 1 Homogeneity can be demonstrated prior to packaging where no influence of packaging is reasonably
expected.
NOTE 2 On some occasions, homogeneity testing cannot be carried out prior to distribution for practical, technical or
logistical reasons.
4.4.3.4 Proficiency test items shall be demonstrated to be sufficiently stable to ensure that they will not
undergo any significant change throughout the conduct of the proficiency testing, including storage and
transport conditions. When this is not possible, the stability shall be quantified and considered as an additional
component of the measurement uncertainty associated with the assigned value of the proficiency test item,
and/or taken into account in the evaluation criteria.
4.4.3.5 When proficiency test items from previous rounds are retained for future use, the property values
to be determined in the proficiency testing scheme shall be confirmed by the proficiency testing provider prior
to distribution.
4.4.3.6 In circumstances where homogeneity and stability testing is not feasible, the proficiency testing
provider shall demonstrate that the procedures used to collect, produce, package and distribute the
proficiency test items are sufficient for the purpose of the proficiency testing.
4.4.4 Statistical design
4.4.4.1 Statistical designs shall be developed to meet the objectives of the scheme, based on the nature
of the data (quantitative or qualitative, including ordinal and categorical), statistical assumptions, the nature of
errors, and the expected number of results (see B.3.2.2).
NOTE 1 Statistical design covers the process of planning, collection, analysis and reporting of the proficiency testing
scheme data. Statistical designs are often based on stated objectives for the proficiency testing scheme, such as detection
of certain types of errors with specified power or determination of assigned values with specified measurement uncertainty.
NOTE 2 Data analysis methods could vary from the very simple (e.g. descriptive statistics) to the complex, using
statistical models with probabilistic assumptions or combinations of results for different proficiency test items.
NOTE 3 In cases where the proficiency testing scheme design is mandated by a specification given by, for example, a
customer, regulatory authority or accreditation body, the statistical design and data analysis methods can be taken directly
from the specification.
NOTE 4 In the absence of reliable information needed to produce a statistical design, a preliminary interlaboratory
comparison can be used.
4.4.4.2 The proficiency testing provider shall document the statistical design and data analysis methods
to be used to identify the assigned value and evaluate participant results, and shall provide a description of
the reasons for their selection and assumptions upon which they are based. The proficiency testing provider
shall be able to demonstrate that statistical assumptions are reasonable and that statistical analyses are
carried out in accordance with prescribed procedures.
4.4.4.3 In designing a statistical analysis, the proficiency testing provider shall give careful consideration
to the following:
a) the accuracy (trueness and precision) as well as the measurement uncertainty required or expected for
each measurand or characteristic in the proficiency testing;
b) the minimum number of participants in the proficiency testing scheme needed to meet the objectives of
the statistical design; in cases where there is an insufficient number of participants to meet these
objectives or to produce statistically meaningful analysis of results, the proficiency testing provider shall
document, and provide to participants, details of the alternative approaches used to assess participant
performance;
c) the relevance of significant figures to the reported result, including the number of decimal places;

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
d) the number of proficiency test items to be tested or measured and the number of repeat tests, calibrations
or measurements to be conducted on each proficiency test item or for each determination;
e) the procedures used to establish the standard deviation for proficiency assessment or other evaluation
criteria;
f) procedures to be used to identify or handle outliers, or both;
g) where relevant, the procedures for the evaluation of values excluded from statistical analysis; and
h) where appropriate, the objectives to be met for the design and the frequency of proficiency testing rounds.
4.4.5 Assigned values
4.4.5.1 The proficiency testing provider shall document the procedure for determining the assigned
values for the measurands or characteristics in a particular proficiency testing scheme. This procedure shall
take into account the metrological traceability and measurement uncertainty required to demonstrate that the
proficiency testing scheme is fit for its purpose.
NOTE Metrological traceability is not always possible or appropriate.
4.4.5.2 Proficiency testing schemes in the area of calibration shall have assigned values with
metrological traceability, including measurement uncertainty.
4.4.5.3 For proficiency testing schemes in areas other than calibration, the relevance, needs and
feasibility for metrological traceability and associated measurement uncertainty of the assigned value shall be
determined by taking into account specified requirements of participants or other interested parties, or by the
design of the proficiency testing scheme.
NOTE The required metrological traceability chain can differ depending on the type of proficiency test item, the
measurand or characteristic, and the availability of traceable calibrations and reference materials.
4.4.5.4 When a consensus value is used as the assigned value (see Annex B), the proficiency testing
provider shall document the reason for that selection and shall estimate the uncertainty of the assigned value
as described in the plan for the proficiency testing scheme.
4.4.5.5 The proficiency testing provider shall have a policy regarding the disclosure of assigned values.
The policy shall ensure that participants cannot gain advantage from early disclosure.
4.5 Choice of method or procedure
4.5.1 Participants shall normally be expected to use the test method, calibration or measurement procedure
of their choice, which should be consistent with their routine procedures. The proficiency testing provider may
instruct participants to use a specified method in accordance with the design of the proficiency testing scheme.
4.5.2 Where participants are permitted to use a method of their choice, the proficiency testing provider
shall:
a) have a policy and follow a procedure regarding comparison of results obtained by different test or
measurement methods;
b) be aware of which different test or measurement methods for any measurand are technically equivalent,
and take steps to assess participants' results using these methods accordingly.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
4.6 Operation of proficiency testing schemes
4.6.1 Instructions for participants
4.6.1.1 The proficiency testing provider shall give participants sufficient prior notice before sending
proficiency test items, providing the date on which the proficiency test items are likely to arrive or to be
despatched, unless the design of the proficiency testing scheme makes it inappropriate to do so.
4.6.1.2 The proficiency testing provider shall give detailed documented instructions to all participants.
Instructions to participants shall include:
a) the necessity to treat proficiency test items in the same manner as the majority of routinely tested
samples (unless there are particular requirements of the proficiency testing scheme which require
departure from this principle);
b) details of factors which could influence the testing or calibration of the proficiency test items, e.g. the
nature of the proficiency test items, conditions of storage, whether the proficiency testing scheme is
limited to selected test methods, and the timing of the testing or measurement;
c) detailed procedure for preparing or conditioning, or both preparing and conditioning, of the proficiency test
items before conducting the tests or calibrations;
d) any appropriate instructions on handling the proficiency test items, including any safety requirements;
e) any specific environmental conditions for the participant to conduct tests or calibrations, or both, and, if
relevant, any requirement for the participants to report relevant environmental conditions during the time
of the measurement;
f) specific and detailed instructions on the manner of recording and reporting test or measurement results
and associated uncertainties. If the instructions include reporting of the uncertainty of the reported result
or measurement, this shall include the coverage factor and, whenever practicable, the coverage
probability;
NOTE This instruction usually includes parameters such as the units of measurement, the number of significant
figures or decimal places and reporting basis (e.g. on dry weight, or “as received”).
g) the latest date for the provider to receive the proficiency testing or measurement results for analysis;
h) information on the contact details of the proficiency testing provider for enquiries; and
i) instructions on return of the proficiency test items, when applicable.
4.6.2 Proficiency test items handling and storage
4.6.2.1 The proficiency testing provider shall ensure that proficiency test items are appropriately identified
and segregated and cannot become contaminated or degraded, from the time of preparation to their
distribution to participants.
4.6.2.2 The proficiency testing provider shall provide secure storage areas or stock rooms, or both, which
prevent damage or deterioration of any proficiency test item between preparation and distribution. Appropriate
procedures for authorizing despatch to, and receipt from, such areas shall be defined.
4.6.2.3 When appropriate, the condition of stored or stocked proficiency test items, chemicals and
materials shall be assessed at specified intervals during their storage life in order to detect possible
deterioration.
4.6.2.4 Where potentially hazardous proficiency test items, chemicals and materials are used, facilities
shall be available to ensure their safe handling, decontamination and disposal.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
4.6.3 Packaging, labelling and distribution of proficiency test items
4.6.3.1 The proficiency testing provider shall control packaging and labelling processes to the extent
necessary to ensure conformity with relevant national, regional, or international safety and transport
requirements.
NOTE The proper distribution of proficiency test items can present severe problems for some types of material, e.g.
those which require uninterrupted storage in cold conditions or which should not be exposed to X-rays, shock or vibration.
Most types of chemical materials would benefit from air-tight packaging to avoid contamination by atmospheric
contaminants, e.g. fuel vapours or engine exhaust gases which can be encountered during transport.
4.6.3.2 The proficiency testing provider shall specify relevant environmental conditions for the transport of
proficiency test items. Where relevant, the proficiency testing provider shall monitor the pertinent
environmental conditions of the proficiency test item during transport and assess the impact of environmental
influences on the proficiency test item.
4.6.3.3 In proficiency testing schemes where participants are required to transport the proficiency test
items to other participants, documented instructions for this transport shall be supplied.
4.6.3.4 The proficiency testing provider shall ensure that labels are securely attached to the packaging of
individual proficiency test items and are designed to remain legible and intact throughout the proficiency
testing round.
4.6.3.5 The proficiency testing provider shall follow a procedure to enable the confirmation of delivery of
the proficiency test items.
NOTE This could be achieved in accordance with 4.6.1.1 by asking participants to inform the proficiency testing
provider if proficiency test items have not been received in line with the schedule of dates provided.
4.7 Data analysis and evaluation of proficiency testing scheme results
4.7.1 Data analysis and records
4.7.1.1 All data processing equipment and software shall be validated in accordance with procedures
before being brought into use. Computer system maintenance shall include a back-up process and system
recovery plan. The results of such maintenance and operational checks shall be recorded.
4.7.1.2 Results received from participants shall be recorded and analysed by appropriate methods.
Procedures shall be established and implemented to check the validity of data entry, data transfer, statistical
analysis, and reporting.
4.7.1.3 Data analysis shall generate summary statistics and performance statistics, and associated
information consistent with the statistical design of the proficiency testing scheme.
4.7.1.4 The influence of outliers on summary statistics shall be minimized by the use of robust statistical
methods or appropriate tests to detect statistical outliers.
4.7.1.5 The proficiency testing provider shall have documented criteria and procedures for dealing with
test results that may be inappropriate for statistical evaluation, e.g. miscalculations, transpositions and other
gross errors.
4.7.1.6 The proficiency testing provider shall have documented criteria and procedures to identify and
manage proficiency test items that have been distributed and are subsequently found to be unsuitable for
performance evaluation, e.g. because of inhomogeneity, instability, damage or contamination.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
4.7.2 Evaluation of performance
4.7.2.1 The proficiency testing provider shall use valid methods of evaluation which meet the purpose of
the proficiency testing scheme. The methods shall be documented and include a description of the basis for
the evaluation. The evaluation of performance shall not be subcontracted (see 5.5.2).
4.7.2.2 Where appropriate for the purpose of the proficiency testing scheme, the proficiency testing
provider shall provide expert commentary on the performance of participants with regard to the following:
a) overall performance against prior expectations, taking measurement uncertainties into account;
b) variation within and between participants, and comparisons with any previous proficiency testing rounds,
similar proficiency testing schemes, or published precision data;
c) variation between methods or procedures;
d) possible sources of error (with reference to outliers) and suggestions for improving performance;
e) advice and educational feedback to participants as part of the continual improvement procedures of
participants;
f) situations where unusual factors make evaluation of results and commentary on performance impossible;
g) any other suggestions, recommendations or general comments; and
h) conclusions.
NOTE It can be useful to provide individual summary sheets for participants periodically during or after completion of
a particular proficiency testing scheme. These can include updated summaries of performance for individual participants
over successive proficiency testing rounds of a continuous proficiency testing scheme. Such summaries can be further
analysed and trends highlighted, if required.
4.8 Reports
4.8.1 Proficiency test reports shall be clear and comprehensive and include data covering the results of all
participants, together with an indication of the performance of individual participants. The authorization of the
final report shall not be subcontracted (see 5.5.2).
NOTE Where all original data cannot be reported to participants, a summary of the results, e.g. in tabulated or
graphical form, can be supplied.
4.8.2 Reports shall include the following, unless it is not applicable or the proficiency testing provider has
valid reasons for not doing so:
a) the name and contact details for the proficiency testing provider;
b) the name and contact details for the coordinator;
c) the name(s), function(s), and signature(s) or equivalent identification of person(s) authorizing the report;
d) an indication of which activities are subcontracted by the proficiency testing provider;
e) the date of issue and status (e.g. preliminary, interim, or final) of the report;
f) page numbers and a clear indication of the end of the report;
g) a statement of the extent to which results are confidential;
h) the report number and clear identification of the proficiency testing scheme;

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
i) a clear description of the proficiency test items used, including necessary details of the proficiency test
item's preparation and homogeneity and stability assessment;
j) the participants' results;
k) statistical data and summaries, including assigned values and range of acceptable results and graphical
displays;
l) procedures used to establish any assigned value;
m) details of the metrological traceability and measurement uncertainty of any assigned value;
n) procedures used to establish the standard deviation for proficiency assessment, or other criteria for
evaluation;
o) assigned values and summary statistics for test methods/procedures used by each group of participants
(if different methods are used by different groups of participants);
p) comments on participants' performance by the proficiency testing provider and technical advisers;
q) information about the design and implementation of the proficiency testing scheme;
r) procedures used to statistically analyse the data;
s) advice on the interpretation of the statistical analysis; and
t) comments or recommendations, based on the outcomes of the proficiency testing round.
NOTE For continuous proficiency testing schemes, it can be sufficient to have simpler reports, such that many of the
elements in this clause could be excluded from routine reports, but included in proficiency testing scheme protocols or in
periodic summary reports that are available to participants.
4.8.3 Reports shall be made available to participants within planned timescales. In sequential proficiency
testing schemes, e.g. where the turn-around time may be very long, and in schemes involving perishable
materials, preliminary or anticipated results may be provided before final results are disclosed.
NOTE This allows for early investigation of possible error.
4.8.4 The proficiency testing provider shall have a policy for the use of reports by individuals and
organizations.
4.8.5 When it is necessary to issue a new or amended report for a proficiency testing scheme, this shall
include the following:
a) a unique identification;
b) a reference to the original report that it replaces or amends; and
c) a statement concerning the reason for the amendment or re-issue.
4.9 Communication with participants
4.9.1 The proficiency testing provider shall make detailed information available about the proficiency testing
scheme. This shall include:
a) relevant details of the scope of the proficiency testing scheme;
b) any fees for participation;

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
c) documented eligibility criteria for participation;
d) confidentiality arrangements; and
e) details of how to apply.
4.9.2 Participants shall be advised promptly by the proficiency testing provider of any changes in proficiency
testing scheme design or operation.
4.9.3 There shall be documented procedures for enabling participants to appeal against the evaluation of
their performance in a proficiency testing scheme. The availability of this process shall be communicated to
proficiency testing scheme participants.
4.9.4 Relevant records of communications with participants shall be maintained and retained, as
appropriate.
4.9.5 If the proficiency testing provider issues statements of participation or performance, they shall contain
sufficient information to not be misleading.
4.10 Confidentiality
4.10.1 The identity of participants in a proficiency testing scheme shall be confidential and known only to
persons involved in the operation of the proficiency testing scheme, unless the participant waives
confidentiality.
4.10.2 All information supplied by a participant to the proficiency testing provider shall be treated as
confidential.
NOTE Participants can elect to waive confidentiality within the proficiency testing scheme for the purposes of
discussion and mutual assistance, e.g. to improve performance. Confidentiality can also be waived by the participant for
regulatory or recognition purposes. In most instances, the proficiency testing results can be provided to the relevant
authority by the participants themselves.
4.10.3 When an interested party requires the proficiency testing results to be directly provided by the
proficiency testing provider, the participants shall be made aware of the arrangement in advance of
participation.
4.10.4 In exceptional circumstances, when a regulatory authority requires proficiency testing results to be
directly provided to the authority by the proficiency testing provider, the affected participants shall be notified
of this action in writing.
5 Management requirements
5.1 Organization
5.1.1 The proficiency testing provider, or the organization of which it is part, shall be an entity that is legally
identifiable and accountable.
5.1.2 It is the responsibility of the proficiency testing provider to carry out its proficiency testing operations in
such a way as to meet the requirements of this International Standard and to satisfy the needs of the
participants, regulatory authorities and organizations providing recognition.
5.1.3 The management system shall cover work carried out in the proficiency testing provider's permanent
facilities, at sites away from its permanent facilities, and in associated temporary facilities.
5.1.4 If the proficiency testing provider is part of an organization performing other activities, then the
proficiency testing provider shall identify the responsibilities of key personnel in the organization that have an

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
involvement in or could have influence on the proficiency test activities, in order to identify potential conflicts of
interest. Where potential conflicts of interest are identified, procedures shall be put in place to ensure that all
activities of the proficiency testing provider are conducted with impartiality.
5.1.5 The proficiency testing provider shall:
a) have managerial and technical personnel who, irrespective of other responsibilities, have the authority
and resources needed to carry out their duties, including the implementation, maintenance and
improvement of the management system, and to identify the occurrence of departures from the
management system or from the procedures for providing proficiency testing schemes, and to initiate
actions to prevent or minimize such departures;
b) have arrangements to ensure that its management and personnel are free from any undue internal or
external commercial, financial and other pressures that may adversely affect the quality of their work;
c) have policies and procedures to ensure the protection of its participants' confidential information and
proprietary rights, including procedures for their protection during electronic storage and transmission;
d) have policies and procedures to avoid involvement in any activities that might diminish confidence in its
competence, impartiality, judgement or operational integrity;
e) define the organization and management structure, its place in any parent organization, and the
relationships between quality management, technical operations and support services;
f) specify the responsibility, authority, interrelationships and required competence of all personnel who
manage, perform or verify work affecting the quality of the operation of proficiency testing schemes;
g) ensure that the personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they
contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the management system;
h) provide adequate supervision of technical staff, including trainees, by persons familiar with procedures for
each activity;
i) have technical management which has overall responsibility for the technical operations and the provision
of the resources needed to ensure the required quality of proficiency testing schemes, including access to
the necessary technical expertise and experience in the relevant field of testing, calibration or inspection,
as well as statistics, as indicated in 4.4.1.4;
j) appoint a member of staff as quality manager (named as appropriate) who, irrespective of other duties
and responsibilities, shall have defined responsibility and authority for ensuring that the management
system is implemented and followed at all times; the quality manager shall have direct access to the
highest level of management at which decisions are taken on the proficiency testing provider's policies or
resources; and
k) appoint deputies for key managerial personnel.
NOTE Where proficiency testing providers have a small number of personnel, individuals can have more than one
function and it can be impractical to appoint deputies for all major functions.
5.1.6 Top management shall ensure that appropriate communication processes are established within the
organization and that communication takes place regarding the effectiveness of the management system.
5.2 Management system
5.2.1 The proficiency testing provider shall establish, implement and maintain a management system
appropriate to its scope of activities, including the type, range and volume of proficiency testing that it provides.
5.2.2 The proficiency testing provider shall define and document its policies, programmes, procedures and
instructions to the extent necessary to assure the quality of all aspects of proficiency testing. The system's

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
documentation shall be communicated to, understood by, available to, and implemented by the appropriate
personnel.
NOTE These aspects include, but are not limited to, proficiency test item quality (e.g. homogeneity and stability),
characterization (e.g. equipment calibration and method validation), assignment of property values (e.g. use of appropriate
statistical procedures), evaluation of participant performance, distribution of proficiency test items, storage and transport
procedures, statistical treatment of test results, and reporting.
5.2.3 The proficiency testing provider's management system policies related to quality, including a quality
policy statement, shall be defined in a quality manual (named as appropriate). The overall objectives shall be
established and reviewed during management review. The quality policy statement shall be issued under the
authority of top management. It shall include at least the following:
a) the management's commitment to the quality of its proficiency testing services to participants and other
customers;
b) the management's statement of the standard of service;
c) the purpose of the management system related to quality;
d) a requirement that all personnel concerned with the proficiency testing activities familiarize themselves
with the quality documentation and implement the policies and procedures in their work; and
e) the management's commitment to comply with this International Standard and to continually improve the
effectiveness of the management system.
5.2.4 Top management shall provide evidence of commitment to the development and implementation of
the management system and to continually improving its effectiveness.
5.2.5 Top management shall communicate to the organization the importance of meeting customer
requirements, as well as statutory and regulatory requirements.
5.2.6 The quality manual shall include or make reference to the supporting procedures, including technical
procedures. It shall outline the structure of the documentation used in the management system.
5.2.7 The roles and responsibilities of technical management and the quality manager, including their
responsibility for ensuring compliance with this International Standard, shall be defined in the quality manual.
5.2.8 Top management shall ensure that the integrity of the management system is maintained when
changes to the management system are planned and implemented.
5.3 Document control
5.3.1 General
The proficiency testing provider shall establish and maintain procedures to control all documents that form
part of its management system (internally generated, or from external sources), such as regulations,
standards, other normative documents, proficiency testing scheme protocols, test or calibration methods, or
both test and calibration methods, as well as drawings, software specifications, instructions and manuals.
5.3.2 Document approval and issue
5.3.2.1 All documents issued as part of the management system shall be reviewed and approved for use
by authorized personnel prior to issue. A master list or equivalent document control procedure identifying the
current revision status and distribution of documents in the management system shall be established and be
readily available, in order to prevent the use of invalid or obsolete documents, or both.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
5.3.2.2 The procedures adopted shall also ensure that:
a) authorized editions of appropriate documents are available at all locations where activities essential to the
effective operation of proficiency testing schemes are performed;
b) documents are periodically reviewed and updated, as necessary, to ensure continuing suitability and
compliance with applicable requirements;
c) invalid or obsolete documents are promptly removed from all points of issue or use, or otherwise assured
against unintended use; and
d) obsolete documents retained for either legal or knowledge preservation purposes are suitably marked.
5.3.2.3 Management system documents generated by the proficiency testing provider shall be uniquely
identified. Such identification shall include the date of issue or revision identification, or both, page numbering,
the total number of pages or a mark to signify the end of a document, and the issuing authority/authorities.
5.3.3 Document changes
5.3.3.1 Changes to documents shall be reviewed and approved by the same function that performed the
original review and approval, unless specifically designated otherwise. The designated personnel shall have
access to pertinent background information upon which to base their review and approval.
5.3.3.2 Where practicable, the altered or new text shall be identified in the document or the appropriate
attachments.
5.3.3.3 If the proficiency testing provider's document control system allows for the amendment of
documents by hand, pending re-issue of the documents, the procedures and authorities for such amendments
shall be defined. Amendments shall be clearly marked, initialled and dated. A revised document shall be
issued as soon as practicable.
5.3.3.4 Procedures shall be established to describe how changes in documents maintained in

computerized systems are made and controlled.
5.4 Review of requests, tenders and contracts
5.4.1 The proficiency testing provider shall establish and maintain policies and procedures for the review of
requests, tenders and contracts. These reviews shall ensure that:
a) the requirements, including those for test and calibration methods, measuring equipment and proficiency
test items to be used, are adequately defined, documented and understood;
b) the proficiency testing provider has the capability and resources to meet the requirements; and
c) the proficiency testing scheme is technically appropriate.
NOTE 1 This review is particularly important when a customer requests a proficiency testing scheme to be created for
a specific purpose or for a different level or frequency of participation from that normally offered.
NOTE 2 This review can be simplified when the proficiency test scheme is fully described in a catalogue or other notice,
and the participant is enrolling for a routine shipment.
5.4.2 Records of such reviews, including any changes, shall be maintained. Records shall also be
maintained of pertinent discussions with a customer relating to the customer's requirements, or the results of
the work during the period of execution of the contract, or both.
5.4.3 The review shall cover all aspects of the request, including any work that is subcontracted by the
proficiency testing provider.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
5.4.4 The participants and other customers, as appropriate, shall be informed of any deviation in the
contract or agreed proficiency testing scheme design.
5.4.5 If a request or contract is amended after the proficiency testing scheme is underway, the same review
process shall be repeated and any amendments shall be communicated to all affected personnel.
5.5 Subcontracting services
5.5.1 When a proficiency testing provider subcontracts work, the proficiency testing provider shall
demonstrate that the subcontractors' experience and technical competence are sufficient for their assigned tasks
and that they comply with the relevant clauses of this International Standard and other appropriate standards.
5.5.2 The proficiency testing provider shall not subcontract the planning of the proficiency test scheme (see
4.4.1.2), the evaluation of performance (see 4.7.2.1) or the authorization of the final report (see 4.8.1).
NOTE This does not preclude the proficiency testing provider utilizing advice or assistance from any advisors,
experts or steering group.
5.5.3 The proficiency testing provider shall inform participants, in advance and in writing, of services that
are, or may be, subcontracted.
NOTE This notification can, for example, take the form of a statement in the proficiency testing scheme
documentation, such as the following: “Various aspects of the proficiency testing scheme can from time to time be
subcontracted. When subcontracting occurs, it is placed with a competent subcontractor and the proficiency testing
provider is responsible for this work.”
5.5.4 The proficiency testing provider shall be responsible to the participants and other customers for the
subcontractor's work, except in the case where a regulatory authority specifies which subcontractor is to be
used.
5.5.5 The proficiency testing provider shall maintain a register of all subcontractors used in the operation of
proficiency testing schemes, including the scope of subcontracting and a record of the competence
assessment against relevant parts of this International Standard and other appropriate standards for the work
in question.
5.6 Purchasing services and supplies
5.6.1 The proficiency testing provider shall have a policy and procedure(s) for the selection of services and
supplies that it uses and that affect the quality of its proficiency testing schemes. Procedures shall exist for the
purchase, reception and storage of reagents, proficiency test items, reference materials and other
consumable materials relevant for the proficiency testing schemes.
5.6.2 The proficiency testing provider shall ensure that purchased supplies, equipment and consumable
materials that affect the quality of proficiency testing schemes are not used until they have been inspected or
otherwise verified as complying with specifications or requirements. Records of actions taken to check
compliance shall be maintained.
5.6.3 Purchasing documents for items affecting the quality of proficiency testing schemes shall contain data
describing the services and supplies ordered. These purchasing documents shall be reviewed and approved
for technical content prior to release.
5.6.4 The proficiency testing provider shall evaluate suppliers of critical supplies and services which affect
the quality of proficiency testing schemes. The proficiency testing provider shall maintain records of these
evaluations, and list those suppliers that are approved.
NOTE It is understood that some proficiency testing providers can be required to implement their purchasing
procedures in accordance with policies defined by their parent company or a host organization.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
5.7 Service to the customer
5.7.1 The proficiency testing provider shall be willing to cooperate with participants and other customers in
clarifying customers' requests and in monitoring the proficiency testing provider's performance in relation to
the work performed, provided that the proficiency testing provider assures confidentiality to its participants.
5.7.2 The proficiency testing provider shall seek feedback, both positive and negative, from its customers.
The feedback shall be used and analysed to improve the management system, proficiency testing schemes,
and customer service.
NOTE Examples of the types of feedback include customer satisfaction surveys and review of proficiency testing
reports with customers.
5.8 Complaints and appeals
The proficiency testing provider shall have a policy and follow a procedure for the resolution of complaints and
appeals received from participants, customers or other parties. Records shall be maintained of all complaints,
appeals, investigations and corrective actions taken by the proficiency testing provider.
5.9 Control of nonconforming work
5.9.1 The proficiency testing provider shall have a policy and procedure(s) that shall be implemented when
any aspect of its activities does not conform to its own procedures or the agreed requirements of its customers.
The policy and procedure(s) shall ensure that:
a) the responsibilities and authorities for the management of nonconforming work are designated and
actions (including halting work of ongoing programmes and withholding reports, as necessary) are
defined and taken when nonconforming work is identified;
b) an evaluation of the significance of the nonconforming work is made;
c) a decision on the need for action and timescale is taken immediately, together with any decision about
the acceptability of the nonconforming work;
d) proficiency testing scheme participants and other customers, as appropriate, are informed and the
nonconforming proficiency test items or reports already sent to participants are recalled or disregarded;
and
e) the responsibility for authorization of the resumption of work is defined.
NOTE Identification of nonconforming work or problems with the management system or with technical activities can
occur at various places within the management system and technical operations. Examples are participant complaints,
management reviews and internal or external audits, quality control, preparations of proficiency test items, homogeneity
and stability tests, data analysis, instructions to participants, and materials handling and storage.
5.9.2 Where the evaluation indicates that nonconforming work could recur or that there is doubt about the
compliance of the proficiency testing provider or subcontractor with their own policies and procedures, the
corrective action procedure in 5.11 shall be promptly followed.
5.10 Improvement
The proficiency testing provider shall continually improve the effectiveness of its management system through
the use of the quality policy, quality objectives, audit results, analysis of data, corrective and preventive
actions and management review.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
5.11 Corrective actions
5.11.1 General
The proficiency testing provider shall establish a policy and procedure(s) and shall designate appropriate
personnel for implementing corrective actions when nonconforming work or departures from the policies and
procedures in the management system or technical operations have been identified.
NOTE See 5.9.1, Note.
5.11.2 Cause analysis
The procedure for corrective action shall start with an investigation to determine the root cause(s) of the
problem.
NOTE Cause analysis is the key and sometimes the most difficult part in the corrective action procedure. Often, the
root cause is not obvious and thus a careful analysis of all potential causes of the problem is required. Potential causes
could include customer requirements, proficiency test items and their specifications, methods and procedures, staff skills
and training, consumable supplies, preparations of proficiency test items, homogeneity and stability tests, statistical design,
instructions to participants, and materials handling and storage.
5.11.3 Selection and implementation of corrective actions
5.11.3.1 Where corrective action is needed, the proficiency testing provider shall identify potential
corrective actions. It shall select and implement the action(s) most likely to eliminate the problem and to
prevent recurrence.
5.11.3.2 Corrective actions shall be appropriate to the magnitude and risk of the problem.
5.11.3.3 The proficiency testing provider shall document and implement any required changes resulting
from corrective action investigations.
5.11.4 Monitoring of corrective actions
The proficiency testing provider shall monitor the results to ensure that the corrective actions taken have been
effective.
5.11.5 Additional audits
Where the identification of nonconforming activities or departures from authorized procedures cast doubts on
the compliance of the proficiency testing provider with its own policies and procedures, or on its compliance
with this International Standard, the proficiency testing provider shall ensure that the appropriate areas of
activity are audited in accordance with 5.14 as soon as possible.
NOTE Such additional audits often follow the implementation of the corrective actions to confirm their effectiveness.
An additional audit can be necessary only when a serious issue or risk to the proficiency testing scheme is identified.
5.12 Preventive actions
5.12.1 Areas for improvements and potential sources of nonconforming work, either technical or concerning
the management system, shall be identified. When improvement opportunities are identified, or if preventive
action is required, action plans shall be developed, implemented and monitored, to reduce the likelihood of
such nonconforming work and to take advantage of the opportunities for improvement.
5.12.2 Any procedure for preventive action shall include the initiation of such actions and application of
controls to ensure that they are effective.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
5.13 Control of records
5.13.1 General
5.13.1.1 The proficiency testing provider shall establish and maintain procedures for identification,
collection, indexing, access, filing, storage, maintenance and disposal of records. Quality records shall include
reports from internal audits and management reviews, as well as records of corrective and preventive actions.
5.13.1.2 All records shall be legible and shall be stored and retained in such a way that they are readily
retrievable in facilities that provide a suitable environment to prevent damage or deterioration and to prevent
loss. Retention times of records shall be established.
NOTE Records can be in the form of any type of media, such as hard copy or electronic storage media.
5.13.1.3 All records shall be kept secure and confidential, and in accordance with relevant regulatory
requirements.
5.13.1.4 The proficiency testing provider shall follow procedures to protect and back-up records stored
electronically and to prevent unauthorized access or amendment of these records.
5.13.2 Technical records
5.13.2.1 The proficiency testing provider shall retain records of all technical data relating to each
proficiency testing round for a defined period, including, but not necessarily limited to:
a) results of homogeneity and stability testing;
b) instructions to participants;
c) participants' original responses;
d) collated data for statistical analysis;
e) information required for reports (see 4.8); and
f) final reports (summary or individual, or both).
NOTE 1 It is advisable to retain sufficient information to establish an audit trail for the processing of results from
proficiency testing rounds.
NOTE 2 Technical records are accumulations of data and information which result from carrying out all proficiency
testing activities. They can include forms, contracts, work sheets, work books, check sheets, work notes, sub-contractor
reports and participant feedback.
5.13.2.2 Data entry, checking and calculations shall be recorded at the time they are made and shall be
identifiable to the specific task and to the personnel responsible.
5.13.2.3 When mistakes occur in records and alterations are made, actions shall be taken to:
a) identify the change and date of alteration;
b) avoid loss of original data; and
c) identify the person making the alteration.
5.14 Internal audits
5.14.1 The proficiency testing provider shall conduct internal audits of its activities periodically, and in
accordance with a predetermined schedule and procedure, in order to verify that its operations continue to

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
comply with the requirements of the management system and this International Standard. The internal audit
programme shall address all elements of the management system, including the technical procedures and
proficiency test item preparation, storage and distribution, as well as reporting activities for the operation of a
proficiency testing scheme. It is the responsibility of the quality manager to plan and organize audits as
required by the schedule and requested by management. Internal audits shall be carried out by trained and
qualified personnel who are, wherever resources permit, independent of the activity to be audited.
NOTE It is advisable that the programme for internal auditing of the management system be completed every
12 months.
5.14.2 When audit findings cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the operations, including the suitability and
correctness of proficiency test items, procedures, statistical evaluations and data presentation, the proficiency
testing provider shall take timely corrective action and shall notify its customers or participants, or both, in
proficiency testing schemes whose activities may have been affected.
5.14.3 The area of audited activity, the audit findings and any corrective actions that arise from them shall be
recorded.
5.14.4 Follow-up audit activities shall verify and record the implementation and effectiveness of any
corrective actions taken.
5.15 Management reviews
5.15.1 In accordance with a pre-determined schedule and procedure, the proficiency testing provider's top
management shall periodically conduct a review of the proficiency testing provider's management system and
proficiency testing activities, in order to ensure their continued suitability and effectiveness and to introduce
any necessary changes or improvements. The review shall take account of:
a) the suitability of policies and procedures;
b) reports from management and supervisory personnel;
c) the outcome of recent internal audits;
d) corrective and preventive actions;
e) assessments by external bodies;
f) changes in the volume and type of work;
g) customer, advisory group or participant feedback;
h) complaints and appeals;
i) recommendations for improvement; and
j) other relevant factors, such as resources and staff training.
NOTE 1 A typical period for conducting a management review is once every 12 months.
NOTE 2 Results can feed into the proficiency testing provider's planning system and can include the objectives and
action plans.
NOTE 3 A management review includes consideration of related subjects at regular management meetings.
NOTE 4 Where the proficiency testing provider is part of a larger organization, it can be appropriate to hold a separate
review meeting to cover proficiency testing activities.
5.15.2 Findings from management reviews, and the actions that arise from them, shall be recorded. The
management shall ensure that those actions are discharged within an appropriate and agreed timescale.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
Annex A
(informative)
Types of proficiency testing schemes
A.1 General
Proficiency testing has become an essential aspect of laboratory practice in all areas of testing, calibration
and inspection. Proficiency testing schemes vary according to the needs of the sector in which they are used,
the nature of the proficiency test items, the methods in use and the number of participants. However, in their
simplest form, most proficiency testing schemes possess the common feature of comparison of results
obtained by one laboratory with those obtained by one or more different laboratories.
The nature of the test or measurement performed in proficiency testing schemes governs the method of
comparing performance. There are three basic types of laboratory examinations: quantitative, qualitative and
interpretive.
⎯ The results of a quantitative measurement are numerical and are reported on an interval or a ratio scale.
Tests for quantitative measurement may vary in their precision, trueness, analytical sensitivity, and
specificity. In quantitative proficiency testing schemes, numerical results are usually analysed statistically.
⎯ The results of qualitative tests are descriptive and reported on a categorical or ordinal scale, e.g. identity
of micro-organisms, or by identification of the presence of a specific measurand (such as a drug or a
grading of a characteristic). Assessment of performance by statistical analysis may not be appropriate for
qualitative examinations.
⎯ In interpretive tests, the “proficiency testing item” is a test result (e.g. a descriptive morphology statement),
a set of data (e.g. to determine a calibration line) or other set of information (e.g. a case study),
concerning an interpretative feature of the participant's competence.
Other proficiency testing schemes have additional features depending on their objective, as outlined in
definition 3.7, Note 1, a) to h). Some common applications of those types of proficiency testing are discussed
below and illustrated in Figure A.1. These schemes may be “single occasion” and performed once, or
“continuous” and performed at regular intervals.
A.2 Sequential participation schemes

Sequential participation schemes (sometimes known as measurement comparison schemes) involve the
proficiency test item being circulated successively from one participant to the next (i.e. sequential
participation), or occasionally circulated back to the proficiency testing provider for rechecking. Model 1 in
Figure A.1 provides a brief summary of this type of design, and the key features are typically those described
below.
a) A reference laboratory that is capable of providing a metrologically traceable assigned value with
sufficiently small measurement uncertainty and reliability for the proficiency test item is used. For
categorical or ordinal properties, the assigned value should be determined by consensus of experts or
other authoritative source. It may be necessary for the proficiency test item to be checked at specific
stages during the conduct of the proficiency testing scheme, in order to ensure that there is no significant
change in the assigned value.
b) The individual measurement results are compared with the assigned value established by the reference
laboratory. The coordinator should take into account the claimed measurement uncertainty of each

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
participant, or the claimed level of expertise. It may be difficult to compare results on a group basis as
there may be relatively few participants having measurement capabilities that closely match each other.
c) Schemes involving sequential participation take time (in some cases, years) to complete. This causes a
number of difficulties, such as
⎯ ensuring the stability of the item,
⎯ the strict monitoring of the circulation among participants and the time allowed for measurement by
individual participants, and
⎯ the need to supply feedback on individual performance during the scheme's implementation, rather
than waiting until it finishes.
d) Proficiency test items (measurement artefacts) used in this type of proficiency test can include, for
example, measurement reference standards (e.g. resistors, micrometers and frequency counters) or, in
medical programmes, histology slides with confirmed diagnoses.
e) Schemes that follow this design but that are limited to situations where a single participant is tested
independently are often called “measurement audits”.
f) In some situations, the assigned value for a proficiency test item may be determined by consensus, after
all participants (or in some situations, a subset of participants) have completed the measurement
comparison.
A.3 Simultaneous participation schemes
A.3.1 General
Simultaneous participation proficiency testing schemes usually involve randomly selected sub-samples from a
source of material being distributed simultaneously to participants for concurrent testing. In some schemes,
participants are required to take samples, which are then considered to be the proficiency test items for
analysis. After completion of the testing, the results are returned to the proficiency testing provider and
compared with the assigned value(s) to give an indication of the performance of the individual participants and
the group as a whole. Examples of proficiency test items used in this type of scheme include food, body fluids,
agricultural products, water, soils, minerals and other environmental materials. In some cases, separate
portions of previously established reference materials are circulated. Advice or educational comments are
typically part of the report returned to participants by the proficiency testing provider with the aim of promoting
improvement in performance. Model 2 in Figure A.1 represents typical proficiency testing schemes of this type,
usually for testing laboratories. Model 3 presents a type of scheme that is frequently used in conjunction with
simultaneous proficiency testing schemes, for oversight or educational purposes.
As discussed in Annex B, assigned values for these proficiency testing schemes may be determined in a
variety of ways. However, either evaluations of performance are based on consensus values from participants
(all participants, or a subset of “experts”) or evaluations can be on the basis of independently-determined
assigned values.
Known value schemes use assigned values that are determined independently of the participants and involve
preparation of proficiency test items with a number of known measurands or characteristics. Certified
reference materials can also be used in these schemes, as their certified value and measurement uncertainty
can be used directly. A direct comparison can also be made between a proficiency test item and a certified
reference material under repeatability conditions. However, care should be taken to ensure that the certified
reference material is closely comparable with a proficiency test item. Proficiency test items from previous
proficiency testing rounds may be used in this type of scheme, if the item has demonstrated stability.
One special application of proficiency testing, often called “blind” proficiency testing, is where the proficiency
test item is indistinguishable from normal customer items or samples received by the laboratory. This type of
proficiency testing can be difficult, since it requires coordination with a normal laboratory customer. In addition,

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
because of unique packaging and shipping needs, bulk processing is usually not feasible and homogeneity
testing is difficult.
A.3.2 Split-level designs
A common design for proficiency testing is the “split-level” design, where similar (but not identical) levels of
measurand are included in two separate proficiency test items. This design is used to estimate the
participant's precision at a specific level of a measurand. It avoids problems associated with replicate
measurements on the same proficiency test item, or with the inclusion of two identical proficiency test items in
the same proficiency testing round.
A.3.3 Split-sample testing schemes
One special type of proficiency testing design that is often used by participants' customers and some
regulatory bodies is the “split-sample” design.
NOTE This design is not to be confused with a split-level design, which is discussed in A.3.2.
Typically, split-sample proficiency testing involves comparisons of the data produced by small groups of
participants (often only two). In these proficiency testing schemes, samples of a product or a material are
divided into two or more parts, with each participant testing one part of the sample (see Figure A.1, model 5).
Uses for this type of scheme include identifying poor accuracy, describing consistent bias and verifying the
effectiveness of corrective actions. This design may be used to evaluate one or both participants as suppliers
of testing services, or in cases where there are too few participants for appropriate evaluation of results.
Under such schemes, one of the participants may be considered to operate at a higher metrological level (i.e.
lower measurement uncertainty), due to the use of reference methodology and more advanced equipment,
etc., or through confirmation of its own performance through satisfactory participation in a recognized
interlaboratory comparison scheme. Its results are considered to be the assigned values in such comparisons
and it may act as an advisory or mentor laboratory to the other participants comparing split-sample data with it.
A.3.4 Partial-process schemes
Special types of proficiency testing involve the evaluation of participants' abilities to perform parts of the
overall testing or measurement process. For example, some existing proficiency testing schemes evaluate
participants' abilities to transform and report a given set of data (rather than conduct the actual test or
measurement), to make interpretations based on a given set of data or proficiency testing items, such as
stained blood films for diagnosis, or to take and prepare samples or specimens in accordance with a
specification.
A.4 External quality assessment (EQA) programmes

EQA programmes (such as those provided for laboratory medicine examinations) offer a variety of
interlaboratory comparison schemes based on this traditional proficiency testing model, but with broader
application of the schemes described in A.2 and A.3 and illustrated in Figure A.1. Many EQA programmes are
designed to provide insight into the complete path of workflow of the laboratory, and not just the testing
processes. Most EQA programmes are continuous schemes that include long term follow-up of laboratory
performance. A typical feature of EQA programmes is to provide education to participants and promote quality
improvement. Advisory and educational comments comprise part of the report returned to participants to
achieve this aim.
Some EQA programmes assess performance of pre-analytical and post-analytical phases of testing, as well
as the analytical phase. In such EQA programmes, the nature of the proficiency test item may differ
significantly from that used in traditional proficiency testing schemes. The “proficiency test item” may be a
questionnaire or case study (see Figure A.1, model 3) circulated by the EQA provider to each participant for
return of specific answers. Alternatively, pre-analytical information may accompany the proficiency test item,
requiring the participant to select an appropriate approach to testing or interpretation of results, and not just to

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
perform the test. In “sample review” schemes, participants may be required to provide the “proficiency test
items” to the EQA provider (see Figure A.1, model 4). This may take the form of a processed specimen or
sample (e.g. stained slide or fixed tissue), laboratory data (e.g. test results, laboratory reports or quality
assurance/control records) or documentation (e.g. procedures or method verification criteria).
a Depending how the assigned value is derived, it will be either determined prior to the distribution of the proficiency test
items or after the return of participant results.
Figure A.1 — Examples of common types of proficiency testing schemes

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
Annex B
(informative)
Statistical methods for proficiency testing
B.1 General
Proficiency test results can appear in many forms, spanning a wide range of data types and underlying
statistical distributions. The statistical methods used to analyse the results need to be appropriate for each
situation, and so are too varied to be specified in this International Standard. ISO 13528 describes preferred
specific methods for each of the situations discussed below, but also states that other methods may be used
as long as they are statistically valid and are fully described to participants. Some of the methods in
ISO 13528, especially for homogeneity and stability testing, are modified slightly in the IUPAC2) Technical
Report “The International Harmonized Protocol for the proficiency testing of analytical chemistry
laboratories”[18]. These documents also present guidance on design and visual data analysis. Other
references may be consulted for specific types of proficiency testing schemes, e.g. measurement comparison
schemes for calibration.
The methods discussed in this annex and in the referenced documents cover the fundamental steps common
to nearly all proficiency testing schemes, i.e.
a) determination of the assigned value,
b) calculation of performance statistics,
c) evaluation of performance, and
d) preliminary determination of proficiency test item homogeneity and stability.
With new proficiency testing schemes, initial agreement between results is often poor, due to new questions,
new forms, artificial test items, poor agreement of test or measurement methods, or variable measurement
procedures. Coordinators may have to use robust indicators of relative performance (such as percentiles) until
agreement improves. Statistical methods may need to be refined once participant agreement has improved
and proficiency testing is well established.
This annex does not consider statistical methods for analytical studies other than for treatment of proficiency
test data. Different methods may be needed to implement the other uses of interlaboratory comparison data
listed in the Introduction.
B.2 Determination of the assigned value and its uncertainty

B.2.1 There are various procedures available for the establishment of assigned values. The most common
procedures are listed below in an order that, in most cases, will result in increasing uncertainty for the
assigned value. These procedures involve the use of:
a) known values – with results determined by specific proficiency test item formulation (e.g. manufacture or
dilution);
b) certified reference values – as determined by definitive test or measurement methods (for quantitative
tests);
2) International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
c) reference values – as determined by analysis, measurement or comparison of the proficiency test item
alongside a reference material or standard, traceable to a national or international standard;
d) consensus values from expert participants – experts (which may, in some situations, be reference
laboratories) should have demonstrable competence in the determination of the measurand(s) under test,
using validated methods known to be highly accurate and comparable to methods in general use;
e) consensus values from participants – using statistical methods described in ISO 13528 and the IUPAC
International Harmonized Protocol, and with consideration of the effects of outliers.
B.2.2 Assigned values should be determined to evaluate participants fairly, yet to encourage agreement
among test or measurement methods. This is accomplished through selection of common comparison groups
and the use of common assigned values, wherever possible.
B.2.3 Procedures for determining the uncertainty of assigned values are discussed in detail in ISO 13528
and the IUPAC International Harmonized Protocol, for each common statistic used (as mentioned above).
Additional information on uncertainty is also provided in ISO/IEC Guide 98-3.
B.2.4 Statistical methods for determining the assigned value for qualitative data (also called “categorical” or
“nominal” values), or semi-quantitative values (also called “ordinal” values) are not discussed in ISO 13528 or
the IUPAC International Harmonized Protocol. In general, these assigned values need to be determined by
expert judgement or manufacture. In some cases, a proficiency testing provider may use a consensus value,
as defined by agreement of a predetermined majority percentage of responses (e.g. 80% or more). However,
the percentage used should be determined based on objectives for the proficiency testing scheme and the
level of competence and experience of the participants.
B.2.5 Outliers are statistically treated as described below.
a) Obvious blunders, such as those with incorrect units, decimal point errors, and results for a different
proficiency test item should be removed from the data set and treated separately. These results should
not be subject to outlier tests or robust statistical methods.
b) When participants' results are used to determine assigned values, statistical methods should be in place
to minimize the influence of outliers. This can be accomplished with robust statistical methods or by
removing outliers prior to calculation. In larger or routine proficiency testing schemes, it may be possible
to have automated outlier screens, if justified by objective evidence of effectiveness.
c) If results are removed as outliers, they should be removed only for calculation of summary statistics.
These results should still be evaluated within the proficiency testing scheme and be given the appropriate
performance evaluation.
NOTE ISO 13528 describes a specific robust method for determination of the consensus mean and standard
deviation, without the need for outlier removal.
B.2.6 Other considerations are outlined below.
a) Ideally, if assigned values are determined by participant consensus, the proficiency testing provider
should have a procedure to establish the trueness of the assigned values and for reviewing the
distribution of the data.
b) The proficiency testing provider should have criteria for the acceptability of an assigned value in terms of
its uncertainty. In ISO 13528 and in the IUPAC International Harmonized Protocol, criteria are provided
that are based on a goal to limit the effect that uncertainty in the assigned value has on the evaluation, i.e.
the criteria limit the probability of having a participant receive an unacceptable evaluation because of
uncertainty in the assigned value.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
B.3 Calculation of performance statistics
B.3.1 Performance for quantitative results
B.3.1.1 Proficiency test results often need to be transformed into a performance statistic, in order to aid
interpretation and to allow comparison with defined objectives. The purpose is to measure the deviation from
the assigned value in a manner that allows comparison with performance criteria. Statistical methods may
range from no processing required to complex statistical transformations.
B.3.1.2 Performance statistics should be meaningful to participants. Therefore, statistics should be

appropriate for the relevant tests and be well understood or traditional within a particular field.
B.3.1.3 Commonly used statistics for quantitative results are listed below, in order of increasing degree of
transformation of participants' results.
a) The difference, D, is calculated using Equation (B.1):
D = (x − X) (B.1)
where
x is the participant's result;
X is the assigned value.
b) The percent difference, D%, is calculated using Equation (B.2):
(x − X )
D% = × 100 (B.2)
X
c) The z scores are calculated using Equation (B.3):
x− X
z= (B.3)
σˆ
where σˆ is the standard deviation for proficiency assessment.
As described in ISO 13528, σˆ can be calculated from the following:
⎯ a fitness for purpose goal for performance, as determined by expert judgement or regulatory
mandate (prescribed value);
⎯ an estimate from previous rounds of proficiency testing or expectations based on experience (by
perception);
⎯ an estimate from a statistical model (general model);
⎯ the results of a precision experiment; or
⎯ participant results, i.e. a traditional or robust standard deviation based on participant results.
d) The zeta score, ζ, is calculated using Equation (B.4), where calculation is very similar to the En number
[see e) below], except that standard uncertainties are used rather than expanded uncertainties. This
allows the same interpretation as for traditional z scores.
x− X
ζ = (B.4)
u lab 2 + u av 2

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
where
ulab is the combined standard uncertainty of a participant's result;
uav is the standard uncertainty of the assigned value.
e) En numbers are calculated using Equation (B.5):
x−X
En = (B.5)
U lab 2 + U ref 2
where
Ulab is the expanded uncertainty of a participant's result;
Uref is the expanded uncertainty of the reference laboratory's assigned value.
NOTE 1 The formulae in Equations (B.4) and (B.5) are correct only if x and X are independent.
NOTE 2 For additional statistical approaches, see ISO 13528 and the IUPAC International Harmonized Protocol.
B.3.1.4 The aspects below should be taken into consideration.
a) The simple difference between the participant's result and the assigned value may be adequate to
determine performance, and is most easily understood by participants. The quantity (x − X) is called the
“estimate of laboratory bias” in ISO 5725-4 and ISO 13528.
b) The percent difference is independent of the magnitude of the assigned value, and is well understood by
participants.
c) Percentiles or ranks are useful for highly disperse or skewed results, ordinal responses, or when there
are a limited number of different responses. This method should be used with caution.
d) Transformed results may be preferred, or necessary, depending on the nature of the test. For example,
dilution-based results are a form of geometric scale, transformable by logarithms.
e) If consensus is used to determine σ̂ , the estimates of variability should be reliable, i.e. based on enough
observations to reduce the influence of outliers and achieve sufficiently low uncertainty.
f) If scores consider the participants' reported estimates of measurement uncertainty (e.g. with En scores or
zeta scores), these will only be meaningful if the uncertainty estimates are determined in a consistent
manner by all participants, such as in accordance with the principles in ISO/IEC Guide 98-3.
B.3.2 Performance for qualitative and semi-quantitative results
B.3.2.1 For qualitative or semi-quantitative results, if statistical methods are used, they must be
appropriate for the nature of the responses. For qualitative data (also called “categorical” data), the
appropriate technique is to compare a participant's result with the assigned value. If they are identical, then
performance is acceptable. If they are not identical, then expert judgement is needed to determine if the result
is fit for its intended use. In some situations, the proficiency testing provider may review the results from
participants and determine that a proficiency testing item was not suitable for evaluation, or that the assigned
value was not correct. These determinations should be part of the plan for the scheme and understood by the
participants in advance of the operation of the scheme.
B.3.2.2 For semi-quantitative results (also called “ordinal” results), the techniques used for qualitative
data (B.3.2.1) are appropriate. Ordinal results include, for example, responses such as grades or rankings,

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
sensory evaluations, or the strength of a chemical reaction (e.g. 1+, 2+, 3+, etc.). Sometimes these responses
are given as numbers, e.g. 1 = Poor, 2 = Unsatisfactory, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Very Good.
B.3.2.3 It is not appropriate to calculate usual summary statistics for ordinal data, even if the results are
numerical. This is because the numbers are not on an interval scale, i.e. the difference between 1 and 2, in
some objective sense, may not be the same as the difference between 3 and 4, so averages and standard
deviations cannot be interpreted. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use evaluation statistics such as z scores
for semi-quantitative results. Specific statistics, such as rank or order statistics, designed for ordinal data,
should be used.
B.3.2.4 It is appropriate to list the distribution of results from all participants (or produce a graph), along
with the number or percentage of results in each category, and to provide summary measures, such as the
modes (most common responses) and range (lowest and highest response). It may also be appropriate to
evaluate results as acceptable based on closeness to the assigned value, e.g. results within plus or minus one
response from the assigned value may be fit for the purpose of the measurement. In some situations, it may
be appropriate to evaluate performance based on percentiles, e.g. the 5 % of results farthest from the mode or
farthest from the assigned value may be determined to be unacceptable. This should be based on the
proficiency testing scheme plan (i.e. fitness for purpose) and understood by participants in advance.
B.3.3 Combined performance scores
Performance may be evaluated on the basis of more than one result in a single proficiency testing round. This
occurs when there is more than one proficiency test item for a particular measurand, or a family of related
measurands. This would be done to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of performance.
Graphical methods, such as the Youden plot or a plot showing Mandel's h-statistics, are effective tools for
interpreting performance (see ISO 13528).
In general, averaged performance scores are discouraged because they can mask poor performance on one
or more proficiency test items that should be investigated. The most commonly used combined performance
score is simply the number (or percentage) of results determined to be acceptable.
B.4 Evaluation of performance
B.4.1 Initial performance
B.4.1.1 Criteria for performance evaluation should be established after taking into account whether the
performance measure involves certain features. The features for performance evaluation are the following:
a) expert consensus, where the advisory group, or other qualified experts, directly determine whether
reported results are fit for their intended purpose; agreement of experts is the typical way to assess
results for qualitative tests;
b) fitness for purpose, predetermined criteria that consider, for example, method performance specifications
and participants' recognized level of operation;
c) statistical determination for scores, i.e. where criteria should be appropriate for each score; common
examples of application of scores are as follows:
1) for z scores and zeta scores (for simplicity, only “z” is indicated in the examples below, but “ζ ” may
be substituted for “z” in each case):
⎯ ⎜z⎜ u 2,0 indicates “satisfactory” performance and generates no signal;
⎯ 2,0 < ⎜z⎜ < 3,0 indicates “questionable” performance and generates a warning signal;

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
⎯ ⎜z⎜ W 3,0 indicates “unsatisfactory” performance and generates an action signal;
2) for En numbers:
⎯ ⎜En⎜ u 1,0 indicates “satisfactory” performance and generates no signal;
⎯ ⎜En⎜ > 1,0 indicates “unsatisfactory” performance and generates an action signal.
B.4.1.2 For split-sample designs, an objective may be to identify in results inadequate calibration or large
random fluctuation, or both. In these cases, evaluations should be based on an adequate number of results
and across a wide range of concentrations. Graphical presentations are useful for identifying and describing
these problems, and are described in ISO 13528. These graphs should use differences between results on
the vertical axis, rather than plots of results from one participant versus another, because of problems of scale.
One key consideration is whether results from one of the participants have, or can be expected to have, lower
measurement uncertainty. In this case, those results are the best estimate of the actual level of measurand. If
both participants have approximately the same measurement uncertainty, the average of the pair of results is
the preferred estimate of actual level.
B.4.1.3 Graphs should be used whenever possible to show performance (e.g. histograms, error bar
charts, ordered z score charts), as described in ISO 13528 and the IUPAC International Harmonized Protocol.
These charts can be used to show:
a) distributions of participant values;
b) relationship between results on multiple proficiency test items;
c) comparative distributions for different methods.
B.4.2 Monitoring performance over time
B.4.2.1 A proficiency test scheme can include procedures to monitor performance over time. The
procedures should allow participants to see the variability in their performance, whether there are general
trends or inconsistencies, and where the performance varies randomly.
B.4.2.2 Graphical methods should be used to facilitate interpretation by a wider variety of readers.
Traditional “Shewhart” control charts are useful, particularly for self-improvement purposes. Data listings and
summary statistics allow more detailed review. Standardized performance scores used to evaluate
performance, such as the z score, should be used for these graphs and tables. ISO 13528 presents additional
examples and graphical tools.
B.4.2.3 Where a consensus standard deviation is used as the standard deviation for proficiency testing,
caution should be taken when monitoring performance over time, as the participant group can change, and
can have unknown effects on the scores. It is also common for the interlaboratory standard deviation to
decrease over time, as participants become familiar with the proficiency testing scheme or as methodology
improves. This could cause an apparent increase in z scores, when a participant's individual performance has
not changed.
B.5 Demonstration of proficiency test item homogeneity and stability

B.5.1 The requirements of this International Standard call for a demonstration of “sufficient homogeneity”
with valid statistical methods, including a statistically random selection of a representative number of samples.
Procedures for this are detailed in ISO 13528 and the IUPAC International Harmonized Protocol. These
documents define “sufficient homogeneity” relative to the evaluation interval for the proficiency testing scheme,
and so the recommendations are based on allowances for uncertainty due to inhomogeneity relative to the
evaluation interval. While ISO 13528 places a strict limit on inhomogeneity and instability to limit the effect on
uncertainty and therefore the effect it has on the evaluation, the IUPAC International Harmonized Protocol

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
expands the criteria to allow a statistical test of the estimate of inhomogeneity and instability, relative to the
same criterion recommended in ISO 13528.
B.5.2 There are different needs for requirements in ISO Guide 34 and ISO Guide 35, which are for
determining reference values for certified reference materials, including their uncertainties. ISO Guide 35 uses
statistical analysis of variance to estimate the “bottle-to-bottle” variability and “within-bottle” variability (as
appropriate), and subsequently uses those variances as components of the uncertainty of the assigned value.
Given the need to estimate components accurately for certified reference materials, the number of randomly
selected samples may exceed what is needed for proficiency testing, where the main objective is to check for
unexpected inconsistencies in batches of manufactured proficiency test items.
B.5.3 Stability is normally checked to ensure that the measurand(s) did not change during the course of the
round. As specified in ISO 13528, the IUPAC International Harmonized Protocol and ISO Guide 35,
proficiency test items should be tested under the variety of conditions that occur in the normal operation of a
proficiency testing scheme, e.g. conditions of shipping and handling when distributed to participants. The
criterion for acceptable instability is the same as the criterion for inhomogeneity in ISO 13528, although
typically with fewer tests or measurements.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
Annex C
(informative)
Selection and use of proficiency testing
C.1 General
This annex establishes principles for the selection and use of proficiency testing schemes by participants and
other interested parties. This annex is also intended to promote the harmonized use of proficiency testing
schemes by interested parties (e.g. accreditation bodies, regulatory bodies, or customers of the participant).
Since results from proficiency testing schemes may be used in the evaluation of a participant's performance, it
is important that both the interested parties and participants have confidence in the development and
operation of the proficiency testing schemes.
It is also important for participants to have a clear understanding of the policies of the interested parties for
participation in such proficiency testing schemes, the criteria they use for judging successful performance in
proficiency testing schemes, and their policies and procedures for following up any unsatisfactory results from
a proficiency test round. However, apart from specific requirements from regulatory bodies, it is the
responsibility of the participants themselves to select the appropriate proficiency testing scheme and to
evaluate their results correctly.
It should be recognized, however, that interested parties also take into account the suitability of test data
produced from activities other than proficiency testing schemes, including, for example, results of participants'
own internal quality control procedures with control samples, comparison with split-sample data from other
participants and performance on tests of certified reference materials. Therefore, when selecting a proficiency
testing scheme, the participant should take into consideration the other quality control activities that are
available or have already been performed.
C.2 Selection of proficiency testing schemes

C.2.1 Laboratories (and other types of participants) need to select proficiency testing schemes that are
appropriate for their scope of testing or scope of calibration. The proficiency testing schemes selected should
comply with the requirements of this International Standard.
C.2.2 In selecting a proficiency testing scheme, the following factors should be considered:
a) the tests, measurements or calibrations involved should match the types of tests, measurements or
calibrations performed by the participant;
b) the availability to interested parties of details about the scheme design, procedures for establishment of
assigned values, instructions to participants, statistical treatment of data, and the final summary report;
c) the frequency at which the proficiency testing scheme is operated;
d) the suitability of the organizational logistics for the proficiency testing scheme (e.g. timing, location,
sample stability considerations, distribution arrangements) relevant to the group of participants proposed
for the proficiency testing scheme;
e) the suitability of acceptance criteria (i.e. for judging successful performance in the proficiency test);
f) the costs;

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
g) the proficiency testing provider's policy on maintaining participants' confidentiality;
h) the timescale for reporting of results and for analysis of performance data;
i) the characteristics that instil confidence in the suitability of proficiency test items (e.g. homogeneity,
stability, and, where appropriate, metrological traceability to national or international standards);
j) its conformance with this International Standard.
NOTE Some proficiency testing schemes can include tests which are not an exact match for the tests performed by
the participant (e.g. the use of a different national standard for the same determination), but it can still be technically
justified to participate in the proficiency testing scheme if the treatment of the data allows for consideration of any
significant differences in test methodology or other factors.
C.3 Policies on participation in proficiency testing schemes

C.3.1 If relevant, interested parties should document their policies for participation in proficiency testing
schemes; such documented policies should be publicly available to laboratories and other interested parties.
C.3.2 Issues which should be addressed in participation policies for specific proficiency testing schemes
include:
a) whether participation in specific proficiency testing schemes is mandatory or voluntary;
b) the frequency of participation;
c) the criteria used by the interested party to judge satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance;
d) whether participants may be required to participate in follow-up proficiency testing schemes if

performance is judged to be unsatisfactory;
e) how the results of proficiency testing will be used in the evaluation of performance and subsequent
decisions;
f) details of the interested party's policy on preserving participants' confidentiality.
C.4 Use of proficiency testing by participants

C.4.1 Participants should draw their own conclusions about their performance from an evaluation of the
organization and design of the proficiency testing scheme. Reviews should consider the relation between the
proficiency testing scheme and the needs of the participant's customers. The information that should be taken
into consideration includes:
a) the origin and character of proficiency test items;
b) the test and measurement methods used and, where possible, the assigned values for particular test or
measurement methods;
c) the organization of the proficiency testing scheme (e.g. the statistical design, the number of replicates, the
measurands, the manner of execution);
d) the criteria used by the proficiency testing provider to evaluate the participants' performance;
e) any relevant regulatory, accreditation or other requirements.
C.4.2 Participants should maintain their own records of performance in proficiency testing, including the
outcomes of investigations of any unsatisfactory results and any subsequent corrective or preventive actions.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
C.5 Use of results by interested parties
C.5.1 Accreditation bodies
C.5.1.1 The requirements for an accreditation body with regard to use of proficiency testing are specified
in ISO/IEC 17011:2004, 7.15.
NOTE Further policies on proficiency testing relevant to the compliance of accreditation bodies with requirements for
membership in the ILAC mutual recognition arrangement are specified in ILAC P-9.
C.5.1.2 The results from proficiency testing schemes are useful for both participants and accreditation
bodies. There are, however, limitations on the use of such results to determine competence. Successful
performance in a specific proficiency testing scheme may represent evidence of competence for that exercise,
but may not reflect ongoing competence. Similarly, unsuccessful performance in a specific proficiency testing
scheme may reflect a random departure from a participant's normal state of competence. It is for these
reasons that proficiency testing should not be the only tool used by accreditation bodies in their accreditation
processes.
C.5.1.3 For participants reporting unsatisfactory results, the accreditation bodies should have policies to
a) ensure that the participants investigate and comment on their performance within an agreed time-frame,
and take appropriate corrective action,
b) (where necessary) ensure that the participants undertake any subsequent proficiency testing to confirm
that any corrective actions taken by them are effective, and
c) (where necessary) ensure that on-site evaluation of the participants is carried out by appropriate technical
assessors to confirm that corrective actions are effective.
C.5.1.4 The accreditation bodies should advise their accredited bodies of the possible outcomes of
unsatisfactory performance in a proficiency testing scheme. These may range from continuing accreditation
subject to successful attention to corrective actions within agreed time-frames, temporary suspension of
accreditation for the relevant tests (subject to corrective action), through to withdrawal of accreditation for the
relevant tests.
NOTE Generally speaking, the options selected by an accreditation body will depend on the history of performance of
the participant over time and from the most recent on-site assessments.
C.5.1.5 The accreditation bodies should have policies for feedback from accredited bodies relating to
action taken on the basis of results of proficiency testing schemes, particularly for unsatisfactory performance.
C.5.2 Other interested parties
C.5.2.1 Participants may need to demonstrate their competence to other interested parties, such as
customers or in a subcontracting mandate. Proficiency testing results, as well as other quality control activities,
can be used to demonstrate competence, although this should not be the only activity.
NOTE Proficiency testing data used to validate claims of competence are normally used by organizations in
conjunction with other evidence, such as accreditation. See C.5.1.2.
C.5.2.2 It is the responsibility of the participants to ensure that they have provided all the appropriate
information to interested parties wishing to evaluate the participants as to their competence.
C.6 Use of proficiency testing by regulatory bodies

C.6.1 The results from proficiency testing schemes are useful for regulatory bodies that need to evaluate the
performance of participants covered by regulations.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
C.6.2 If the proficiency testing scheme is operated by a regulatory body, it should be operated in
accordance with the requirements of this International Standard.
C.6.3 Regulatory bodies that use independent proficiency testing providers should
a) seek documentary evidence that the proficiency testing schemes comply with the requirements of this
International Standard before recognizing the proficiency testing scheme, and
b) discuss with participants the scope and operational parameters of the proficiency testing scheme, in order
that the participants' performance may be judged adequately in relation to the regulations.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E)
Bibliography
[1] ISO/IEC Guide 98-3, Uncertainty of measurement — Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in
measurement (GUM:1995)
[2] ISO/IEC 17011:2004, Conformity assessment — General requirements for accreditation bodies
accrediting conformity assessment bodies
[3] ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories
[4] ISO 3534-1, Statistics — Vocabulary and symbols — Part 1: General statistical terms and terms used
in probability
[5] ISO 5725-1, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results — Part 1:
General principles and definitions
[6] ISO 5725-2, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results — Part 2: Basic
method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method
[7] ISO 5725-4, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results — Part 4: Basic
methods for the determination of the trueness of a standard measurement method
[8] ISO 13528:2005, Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons
[9] ISO 15189, Medical laboratories — Particular requirements for quality and competence
[10] ISO Guide 34, General requirements for the competence of reference material producers
[11] ISO Guide 35, Reference materials — General and statistical principles for certification
[12] ISO/TS 21748, Guide to the use of repeatability, reproducibility and trueness estimates in
measurement uncertainty estimation
[13] EN 14136, Use of external quality assessment schemes in the assessment of the performance of in
vitro diagnostic examination procedures
[14] ASTM E1301-95, Standard Guide for Proficiency Testing by Interlaboratory Comparisons
[15] Standards for EQA schemes in laboratory medicine. Version 4.02, December 2004. Clinical Pathology
Accreditation (UK) Ltd. Sheffield, UK
[16] National Occupational Standards for External Quality Assessment, HCS-EQA1 to HCS-EQA12.
Competence Framework for Healthcare Science. (www.skillsforhealth.org.uk/)
[17] EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG4, Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement, 2nd edition, 2000
[18] THOMPSON M., ELLISON S.L.R., W OOD R., “The International Harmonized Protocol for the proficiency
testing of analytical chemistry laboratories” (IUPAC Technical Report), in Pure and Applied Chemistry,
Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 145-196, 2006
[19] ILAC P-9:2005, ILAC Policy for Participation in National and International Proficiency Testing Activities
[20] ILAC P-10:2002, ILAC Policy on Traceability of Measurement Results

BS EN ISO/IEC
17043:2010
BSI - British Standards Institution
BSI is the independent national body responsible for preparing British

Standards. It presents the UK view on standards in Europe and at the
international level. It is incorporated by Royal Charter.
Revisions
British Standards are updated by amendment or revision. Users of British
Standards should make sure that they possess the latest amendments or
editions.
It is the constant aim of BSI to improve the quality of our products and services.
We would be grateful if anyone finding an inaccuracy or ambiguity while using
this British Standard would inform the Secretary of the technical committee
responsible, the identity of which can be found on the inside front cover. Tel:
+44 (0)20 8996 9000. Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7400.
BSI offers members an individual updating service called PLUS which ensures
that subscribers automatically receive the latest editions of standards.
Buying standards
Orders for all BSI, international and foreign standards publications should be
addressed to Customer Services. Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 9001. Fax: +44 (0)20 8996
7001 Email: [email protected] You may also buy directly using a debit/credit
card from the BSI Shop on the Website http://www.bsigroup.com/shop
In response to orders for international standards, it is BSI policy to supply the
BSI implementation of those that have been published as British Standards,
unless otherwise requested.
Information on standards
BSI provides a wide range of information on national, European and
international standards through its Library and its Technical Help to Exporters
Service. Various BSI electronic information services are also available which
give details on all its products and services. Contact Information Centre. Tel:
+44 (0)20 8996 7111 Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7048 Email: [email protected]
Subscribing members of BSI are kept up to date with standards developments
and receive substantial discounts on the purchase price of standards. For details
of these and other benefits contact Membership Administration. Tel: +44 (0)20
8996 7002 Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7001 Email: [email protected]
Information regarding online access to British Standards via British Standards
Online can be found at http://www.bsigroup.com/BSOL
Further information about BSI is available on the BSI website at http://
www.bsigroup.com.
Copyright
Copyright subsists in all BSI publications. BSI also holds the copyright, in the
UK, of the publications of the international standardization bodies. Except as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 no extract may
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any
means – electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without prior written
BSI Group permission from BSI.
Headquarters 389 This does not preclude the free use, in the course of implementing the standard,
Chiswick High Road, of necessary details such as symbols, and size, type or grade designations. If
London, W4 4AL, UK these details are to be used for any other purpose than implementation then the
Tel +44 (0)20 8996 9001 prior written permission of BSI must be obtained.
Fax +44 (0)20 8996 7001
www.bsigroup.com/ Details and advice can be obtained from the Copyright and Licensing Manager.
standards Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7070 Email: [email protected]

Isoiec 17043

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isoiec 17043

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isoiec 17043

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BRITISH STANDARD BS EN ISO/IEC

NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW

This British Standard is the UK implementation of EN ISO/IEC

This British Standard was Amendments/corrigenda issued since publication

ISBN 978 0 580 56522 9

Conformity assessment - General requirements for proficiency

Évaluation de la conformité - Exigences générales Konformitätsbewertung - Allgemeine Anforderungen an

This European Standard was approved by CEN on 30 January 2010.

CEN Management Centre: CENELEC Central Secretariat:

© ISO 2010 — All rights reserved iii

iv © ISO 2010 — All rights reserved

c) establishment of the effectiveness and comparability of test or measurement methods;

d) provision of additional confidence to laboratory customers;

e) identification of interlaboratory differences;

f) education of participating laboratories based on the outcomes of such comparisons;

g) validation of uncertainty claims;

h) evaluation of the performance characteristics of a method – often described as collaborative trials;

© ISO 2010 — All rights reserved v

Conformity assessment — General requirements for proficiency

ISO/IEC 17000:2004, Conformity assessment — Vocabulary and general principles

3 Terms and definitions

© ISO 2010 — All rights reserved 1

NOTE In some cases, the participant can be an inspection body.

2 © ISO 2010 — All rights reserved

NOTE 2 Metrological traceability requires an established calibration hierarchy.

1) International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation.

© ISO 2010 — All rights reserved 3

[ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007, definition 2.41]

[ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007, definition 2.26]

4 © ISO 2010 — All rights reserved

a) select appropriate proficiency test items;

b) plan proficiency testing schemes;

c) perform particular types of sampling;

d) operate specific equipment;

f) prepare, handle and distribute proficiency test items;

g) operate the data processing system;

h) conduct statistical analysis;

i) evaluate the performance of proficiency testing participants;

j) give opinions and interpretations; and

k) authorize the issue of proficiency testing reports.

NOTE Objective measures can be used to assess the attainment of competence.

4.3 Equipment, accommodation and environment

© ISO 2010 — All rights reserved 5

4.4 Design of proficiency testing schemes

a) the name and address of the proficiency testing provider;

d) criteria to be met for participation;

f) selection of the measurand(s) or characteristic(s) of interest, including information on what the

6 © ISO 2010 — All rights reserved

j) reasonable precautions to prevent collusion between participants or falsification of results, and

o) preparation of any standardized reporting formats to be used by participants;

p) a detailed description of the statistical analysis to be used;

r) criteria for the evaluation of performance of participants;

s) a description of the data, interim reports or information to be returned to participants;

u) actions to be taken in the case of lost or damaged proficiency test items.

a) planning requirements as listed in 4.4.1.3;

c) preparation of detailed instructions for participants;

e) provision of advice in evaluating the performance of participants;

© ISO 2010 — All rights reserved 7

h) responding to feedback from participants; and