You talk, we understand – The way out of the tower of Babel

Significance of the topic

The reliability and comparability of laboratory measurement results depend critically on shared, unambiguous terminology. In international, regulated and multi-disciplinary environments, inconsistent use or translation of basic metrological terms can cause misinterpretation of requirements, wasted resources, and non-conforming analytical results. Harmonised vocabulary underpins accreditation, inter-laboratory comparison, method selection and interpretation of data across chemical and biological measurement sectors.

Objectives and overview of the document

The source document aims to highlight the problem of inconsistent terminology in analytical measurement and to promote the use of a common vocabulary based on the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM). It explains why a plain-language guide is needed for laboratory staff, describes common sources of confusion (including translation issues and changing terminology), and introduces the Eurachem guide as a concrete, user-oriented companion to VIM for analysts, quality managers and other stakeholders.

Methodology and approach

The document does not present an experimental study but follows a didactic, guidance-oriented approach: it identifies common problematic terms and concepts, contrasts formal VIM definitions with practical interpretations, and provides contextual examples relevant to chemical and biological analyses. The approach focuses on clarity for practitioners by translating concise, formal definitions into accessible explanations and by noting where terminology has evolved (for example, renaming or reclassifying older terms to fit current metrological practice).

Main findings and discussion

• Absence of a shared vocabulary causes practical problems. Different meanings of common words (for example, the word "standard") and variable translations increase the risk of misinterpretation.
• Formal VIM definitions are concise and intentionally general; users in specific laboratory contexts may find them hard to interpret without examples and explanation.
• Some terminology has changed to better reflect measurement science; for instance, older terms such as "within-laboratory reproducibility" are now reflected by terms like "intermediate precision". Such shifts can be a source of confusion if not clearly explained.
• Key distinctions clarified in the guide include concepts often conflated in practice: accuracy versus trueness versus precision. The guide illustrates these with scenarios showing combinations of bias and variability and how they affect the closeness of individual results, mean results, and agreement among repeated measurements.
• Operational questions relevant to laboratory practice are addressed: when to talk about quantities versus qualities, whether to use measurement procedures or examinations, the difference in scope between method verification and method validation, and when calibration is required versus simple performance verification. The guide also emphasizes the importance of metrological traceability and the meaning of terms such as measurement standard.

Benefits and practical applications of the guidance

• Provides analysts and laboratory managers with accessible, context-rich explanations of VIM concepts, reducing misinterpretation and improving the consistency of analytical practice.
• Supports harmonised accreditation and assessment by offering a shared interpretation of terms used in ISO/IEC 17025, ISO 15189 and ISO/IEC 17043.
• Improves communication among laboratories, accreditation bodies, proficiency testing providers and reference material producers, thereby enhancing the fitness for intended use of reported measurement results.
• Serves as an educational resource for training, method selection, method transfer, and quality assurance activities in both chemical and biological measurement domains.

Future trends and opportunities

• Continued harmonisation: Ongoing updates to international vocabularies (such as future VIM editions) and complementary guidance will be needed to keep pace with evolving measurement technologies and interdisciplinary applications.
• Localized translations with commentary: Producing well-annotated translations and sector-specific glossaries will reduce ambiguity introduced by language differences.
• Digital integration: Embedding standardised terminology into LIMS, laboratory protocols, electronic data systems and accreditation checklists can promote consistent application of definitions and automate checks for conformity.
• Training and competency development: Formal training modules and practical examples should complement reference documents to ensure that laboratory personnel understand and can apply terminology correctly.
• Broader stakeholder engagement: Increased collaboration between standard bodies, accreditation agencies, educators and industry will support consistent interpretation across sectors and geographies.

Conclusion

Clear, shared terminology is a foundational requirement for reliable analytical measurement. While VIM provides the authoritative, normative framework, its concise style and international scope can make direct application difficult for routine laboratory practice. The Eurachem guide addresses this gap by translating VIM concepts into accessible explanations and examples tailored to analysts and quality professionals. Wider use of such guidance will reduce misunderstandings, support consistent accreditation outcomes, and improve the overall quality and comparability of measurement results.

References

1. International Vocabulary of Metrology – Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM), 3rd edition. JCGM 200:2012.
2. Barwick V. J. (Ed.), Eurachem Guide: Terminology in Analytical Measurement − Introduction to VIM3, 2nd edition, 2023. ISBN 978-0-948926-40-2.