Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value.
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Random Error01:04

Random Error

Random or indeterminate errors originate from various uncontrollable variables, such as variations in environmental conditions, instrument imperfections, or the inherent variability of the phenomena being measured. Usually, these errors cannot be predicted, estimated, or characterized because their direction and magnitude often vary in magnitude and direction even during consecutive measurements. As a result, they are difficult to eliminate. However, the aggregate effect of these errors can be...
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Is statistical evaluation sufficient? New external quality assessment performance metrics through clinical performance.

Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine·2026
Same author

Using Smoothing Splines to Quantify Differences in Nonselectivity between In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices in Method Comparison Studies and to Assess Commutability of External Quality Assessment Materials.

Clinical chemistry·2026
Same author

Recommendations for establishing metrological traceability for in vitro diagnostic measurement procedures intended to be used for whole blood samples.

Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry·2026
Same author

Peer Review of "Investigating the Variable Component of the Systematic Error, a Neglected Error Parameter: Theoretical Reevaluation Study".

JMIRx med·2026
Same author

Developing Topics.

Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association·2025
Same author

A Parametric Empirical Bayes Approach to Personalized Reference Intervals and Reference Change Values.

Clinical chemistry·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 8, 2026

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments
08:12

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

The distinction between systematic and random measurement errors depends on context and perspective.

Jesper V Johansen1, Elvar Theodorsson2

  • 1Radiometer Medical ApS, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Clinica Chimica Acta; International Journal of Clinical Chemistry
|June 6, 2026
PubMed
Summary

Measurement error classification as random or systematic depends on observer perspective and available information. Clearly defining the scope of bias and sources of variation for imprecision is crucial for accurate quantification.

Keywords:
BiasImprecisionRandom errorSystematic errorTotal errorUncertainty

More Related Videos

Automated, Quantitative Cognitive/Behavioral Screening of Mice: For Genetics, Pharmacology, Animal Cognition and Undergraduate Instruction
16:23

Automated, Quantitative Cognitive/Behavioral Screening of Mice: For Genetics, Pharmacology, Animal Cognition and Undergraduate Instruction

Published on: February 26, 2014

A Random-displacement Measurement by Combining a Magnetic Scale and Two Fiber Bragg Gratings
08:23

A Random-displacement Measurement by Combining a Magnetic Scale and Two Fiber Bragg Gratings

Published on: September 30, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 8, 2026

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments
08:12

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

Automated, Quantitative Cognitive/Behavioral Screening of Mice: For Genetics, Pharmacology, Animal Cognition and Undergraduate Instruction
16:23

Automated, Quantitative Cognitive/Behavioral Screening of Mice: For Genetics, Pharmacology, Animal Cognition and Undergraduate Instruction

Published on: February 26, 2014

A Random-displacement Measurement by Combining a Magnetic Scale and Two Fiber Bragg Gratings
08:23

A Random-displacement Measurement by Combining a Magnetic Scale and Two Fiber Bragg Gratings

Published on: September 30, 2019

Area of Science:

  • Measurement Science
  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • Measurement errors are categorized as constant, predictable (systematic), or unpredictable (random).
  • The distinction between systematic and random errors is often poorly defined in practice.
  • Errors can occur at any stage of the testing process and impact measurement accuracy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assert that classifying measurement errors as random or systematic is observer-dependent.
  • To highlight the influence of information availability on error perception.
  • To emphasize the need for clear reporting of bias scope and sources of variation for imprecision.

Main Methods:

  • Conceptual analysis of measurement error classification.
  • Review of how errors are quantified (imprecision, measurement uncertainty, bias).
  • Consideration of different stakeholder perspectives (manufacturers, users, regulators).

Main Results:

  • The perception of an error as random or systematic depends on the observer's viewpoint and knowledge.
  • Errors initially perceived as random can become systematic with increased information.
  • Different stakeholders may interpret the same error differently based on their available data.

Conclusions:

  • Accurate quantification and expression of measurement errors require clear definitions.
  • Bias reporting must include its defined scope.
  • Imprecision and uncertainty estimates must detail all included sources of variation.