IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v231y2017i2p91-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the meaning of accuracy and precision in a risk analysis context

Author

Listed:
  • Jon T Selvik
  • Eirik B Abrahamsen

Abstract

The terms ‘accuracy’ and ‘precision’ are commonly used in the scientific literature to describe the quality of, for example, measurements or methods, where traditional definitions of the terms often associate ‘accuracy’ with systematic errors and ‘precision’ with random errors. However, several different definitions exist, and the meaning of the terms may vary. In a risk analysis context, which we study in more detail in this article, it is common to discuss new methods and risk results using the terms ‘accuracy’ or ‘precision’, but, in many situations, a proper clarification of what these terms actually mean is missing. Many authors seem to mix or not differentiate between the terms, some assuming that they are synonymous and a contrasting of the terms is unnecessary. As the concept of risk may also be subject to several interpretations, this may cause confusion and lead to unintended conclusions. A simple example from the oil and gas industry is used to illustrate the situation. The article offers some clarification of the current use of the terms and gives specific suggestions for how to interpret them in risk analysis. An outcome of the article is recommendations on how to define the terms in a risk analysis context.

Suggested Citation

  • Jon T Selvik & Eirik B Abrahamsen, 2017. "On the meaning of accuracy and precision in a risk analysis context," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(2), pages 91-100, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:231:y:2017:i:2:p:91-100
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X16686897
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X16686897
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X16686897?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bjerga, Torbjørn & Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2014. "An illustration of the use of an approach for treating model uncertainties in risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 46-53.
    2. Couso, Ines & Moral, Serafin & Walley, Peter, 2000. "A survey of concepts of independence for imprecise probabilities," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 165-181, June.
    3. Jin, Hui & Lundteigen, Mary Ann & Rausand, Marvin, 2011. "Reliability performance of safety instrumented systems: A common approach for both low- and high-demand mode of operation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 365-373.
    4. Aven, Terje & Heide, Bjørnar, 2009. "Reliability and validity of risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(11), pages 1862-1868.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1908 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Guo, Haitao & Yang, Xianhui, 2008. "Automatic creation of Markov models for reliability assessment of safety instrumented systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(6), pages 829-837.
    7. Garvey, Myles D. & Carnovale, Steven & Yeniyurt, Sengun, 2015. "An analytical framework for supply network risk propagation: A Bayesian network approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(2), pages 618-627.
    8. Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Guiding Resource Allocations Based on Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 597-606, June.
    9. Veland, H. & Aven, T., 2013. "Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 34-40.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lijie, Chen & Tao, Tang & Xianqiong, Zhao & Schnieder, Eckehard, 2012. "Verification of the safety communication protocol in train control system using colored Petri net," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 8-18.
    2. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    3. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    4. Gabriel, Angelito & Ozansoy, Cagil & Shi, Juan, 2018. "Developments in SIL determination and calculation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 148-161.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    6. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    7. Chen, Shun & Zhao, Xudong & Chen, Zhilong & Hou, Benwei & Wu, Yipeng, 2022. "A game-theoretic method to optimize allocation of defensive resource to protect urban water treatment plants against physical attacks," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    8. Rosqvist, Tony, 2010. "On the validation of risk analysis—A commentary," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1261-1265.
    9. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    10. Qazi, Abroon & Dickson, Alex & Quigley, John & Gaudenzi, Barbara, 2018. "Supply chain risk network management: A Bayesian belief network and expected utility based approach for managing supply chain risks," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 24-42.
    11. Dmitry Ivanov, 2022. "Viable supply chain model: integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 319(1), pages 1411-1431, December.
    12. Berger, Niklas & Schulze-Schwering, Stefan & Long, Elisa & Spinler, Stefan, 2023. "Risk management of supply chain disruptions: An epidemic modeling approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1036-1051.
    13. Hokstad, Per, 2014. "Demand rate and risk reduction for safety instrumented systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 12-20.
    14. Antão, P. & Sun, S. & Teixeira, A.P. & Guedes Soares, C., 2023. "Quantitative assessment of ship collision risk influencing factors from worldwide accident and fleet data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    15. Terje Aven, 2018. "An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 876-888, May.
    16. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Zhang, Cai Wen & Zhang, Tieling & Chen, Nan & Jin, Tongdan, 2013. "Reliability modeling and analysis for a novel design of modular converter system of wind turbines," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 86-94.
    18. Robin L. Dillon & Robert M. Liebe & Thomas Bestafka, 2009. "Risk‐Based Decision Making for Terrorism Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 321-335, March.
    19. Eisinger, S. & Oliveira, L.F., 2021. "Evaluating the safety integrity of safety systems for all values of the demand rate," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    20. Lirong Cui & Shijia Du & Aofu Zhang, 2014. "Reliability measures for two-part partition of states for aggregated Markov repairable systems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 212(1), pages 93-114, January.

    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:sae:risrel:v:231:y:2017:i:2:p:91-100. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.