Definition · Plain-language
Measurement uncertainty
Measurement uncertainty is the quantified doubt about the result of a measurement — the range within which the true value is expected to lie.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
Why no measurement is exact
Every measurement is an approximation, however careful. The instrument has finite resolution, conditions fluctuate, and the person reading the scale introduces small variations. Because of this, a measured value on its own is incomplete: it tells you the best estimate but not how much that estimate might be off. Measurement uncertainty makes the doubt explicit, turning a bare number into a range. A length given as 2.50 metres with an uncertainty of 0.01 metres says the true length is reasonably expected to lie between 2.49 and 2.51 metres.
Where uncertainty comes from
Uncertainty arises from two broad sources. Random effects make repeated measurements scatter around a central value; they are unpredictable in any single reading but shrink when many readings are averaged. Systematic effects shift every reading in the same direction — a miscalibrated instrument, a consistent reading habit — and cannot be reduced by averaging, only by correction or calibration. The internationally agreed framework for handling all of this is the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, the GUM, maintained under the BIPM, which sets out how to evaluate and combine these contributions.
Reporting a result properly
A properly reported measurement states the value, its uncertainty and the units, for example "25.4 ± 0.1 mm". Often a coverage factor or confidence level accompanies it, indicating how likely the true value is to fall inside the stated range. Uncertainty is closely tied to significant figures: it makes no sense to quote a value to more digits than the uncertainty justifies. Stating uncertainty is not an admission of carelessness but a mark of rigour — it is precisely what allows two laboratories to compare results and decide whether they truly agree.
Key facts
At a glance
- Definition: the quantified doubt about a measurement result
- Form: a value plus a range, e.g. 100.0 ± 0.2 g
- Why: no measurement is ever perfectly exact
- Random effects: cause scatter; reduced by averaging repeats
- Systematic effects: cause bias; reduced by calibration, not averaging
- Framework: the BIPM’s Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty (GUM)
Common misconceptions
What people often get wrong
Often heard: Uncertainty means the person measuring made a mistake.
Actually: No. Uncertainty is inherent to all measurement, even when done perfectly. It reflects the limits of instruments and conditions, not operator error, and stating it is a sign of rigour.
Often heard: A measurement with no stated uncertainty is exact.
Actually: Every measurement has uncertainty whether or not it is written down. An unqualified number simply hides the doubt rather than removing it.
Often heard: Taking more readings can eliminate uncertainty completely.
Actually: Averaging reduces the random part of uncertainty but never removes it entirely, and it does nothing for systematic effects, which need calibration. Zero uncertainty is unattainable.
