Reliability Of Testing Procedures Research Articles

Seed viability of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) is affected by seed origin and age, but also by testing method and laboratory

Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) is an annual Asteraceae species native to North America which is highly invasive across Europe and has harmful impacts, especially on human health and agriculture. Besides its wide ecological range, particularly its high reproductive power by seeds is promoting its spread to various habitats and regions. To prevent further spread and to control the plant, the European Commission funded projects and COST-Actions involving scientists from all over Europe. A joint trial was set up comprising eight different laboratories from Europe to study seed viability variation in different seed samples. Three different testing methods (viability test with 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC), a germination test combined with a subsequent TTC test and a crush test) were tested within the EU-COST-Action SMARTER network to four different seed origins. The viability test results from different laboratories were compared for variation amongst tests and laboratories. The main aim was to optimise the reliability of testing procedures, but results revealed not only significant effects of seed origin and seed age on seed viability, but also considerable differences between the output of the individual testing methods and furthermore between laboratories. Due to these significant differences in the results of the testing labs, additionally a second test was set up. Twelve Austrian ragweed populations were used for TTC testing to obtain a precise adjustment of the testing method as well as a tight guideline for interpreting the results, particularly for the TTC state “intermediate” since a proper classification of TTC-intermediate coloured seeds is still a challenge when determining viability rates.

Robust Evidence and Secure Evidence Claims

Many philosophers have claimed that evidence for a theory is better when multiple independent tests yield the same result, i.e., when experimental results are robust. Little has been said about the grounds on which such a claim rests, however. The present essay presents an analysis of the evidential value of robustness that rests on the fallibility of assumptions about the reliability of testing procedures and a distinction between the strength of evidence and the security of an evidence claim. Robustness can enhance the security of an evidence claim either by providing what I call second-order evidence, or by providing back-up evidence for a hypothesis.

Balance in single-limb stance in healthy subjects--reliability of testing procedure and the effect of short-duration sub-maximal cycling.

BackgroundTo assess balance in single-limb stance, center of pressure movements can be registered by stabilometry with force platforms. This can be used for evaluation of injuries to the lower extremities. It is important to ensure that the assessment tools we use in the clinical setting and in research have minimal measurement error. Previous studies have shown that the ability to maintain standing balance is decreased by fatiguing exercise. There is, however, a need for further studies regarding possible effects of general exercise on balance in single-limb stance. The aims of this study were: 1) to assess the test-retest reliability of balance variables measured in single-limb stance on a force platform, and 2) to study the effect of exercise on balance in single-limb stance, in healthy subjects.MethodsForty-two individuals were examined for test-retest reliability, and 24 individuals were tested before (pre-exercise) and after (post-exercise) short-duration, sub-maximal cycling. Amplitude and average speed of center of pressure movements were registered in the frontal and sagittal planes. Mean difference between test and retest with 95% confidence interval, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and the Bland and Altman graphs with limits of agreement, were used as statistical methods for assessing test-retest reliability. The paired t-test was used for comparisons between pre- and post-exercise measurements.ResultsNo difference was found between test and retest. The intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.79 to 0.95 in all stabilometric variables except one. The limits of agreement revealed that small changes in an individual's performance cannot be detected. Higher values were found after cycling in three of the eight stabilometric variables.ConclusionsThe absence of systematic variation and the high ICC values, indicate that the test is reliable for distinguishing among groups of subjects. However, relatively large differences in an individual's balance performance would be required to confidently state that a change is real. The higher values found after cycling, indicate compensatory mechanisms intended to maintain balance, or a decreased ability to maintain balance. It is recommended that average speed and DEV 10; the variables showing the best reliability and effects of exercise, be used in future studies.

Reliability of test procedures for detecting the presence of 180� phase discrepancies when measuring transmission coefficients of lossless multiport rectangular-waveguide components

Reliability of test procedures for detecting the presence of 180� phase discrepancies when measuring transmission coefficients of lossless multiport rectangular-waveguide components

Reliability of testing procedures for reinforced concrete structures experimentally checked on bending-stressed beams

The investigation, carried out to check the reliability of testing procedures for reinforced concrete structures reported in Eurocode 2 (1988), has revealed situations in which bending-stressed beams, even when seriously defective, could be judged correctly built because residual deflections after the first or second short-term loading may remain within the limit set by EC2 for passing the test. Even an eventual check on elastic deformability, at least as usually carried out, does not substantially improve the reliability, which definitely improves only if the theoretical deflections are calculated with particular care (among other things, by experimentally measuring the concrete elastic modulus and by introducing the real value for the homogenization coefficient for steel areas instead of the conventional one); but, though it appears capable of revealing anomalies in the stress level in concrete, it fails to reveal a lack of concrete strength. It can be concluded that these procedures need improvement.