IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssc/v39y1990i2p219-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Difference between the Classical and Inverse Methods of Calibration

Author

Listed:
  • Shein‐Chung Chow
  • Jun Shao

Abstract

The difference between the classical and the inverse least squares methods in the problem of calibrating an instrument is studied. We examine the probability that the ratio of the two estimates differs from unity by more than a specified small constant. The results show that this probability increases as the absolute value of the ratio of the regression slope and the standard deviation of the error decreases. Methods of estimating this probability are proposed. An example from the US pharmaceutical industry concerning potency assay is presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Shein‐Chung Chow & Jun Shao, 1990. "On the Difference between the Classical and Inverse Methods of Calibration," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 39(2), pages 219-228, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssc:v:39:y:1990:i:2:p:219-228
    DOI: 10.2307/2347761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/2347761
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2307/2347761?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssc:v:39:y:1990:i:2:p:219-228. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.