Reproducibility and Standard Deviation [closed]








**Closed.** This question is [off-topic](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
 
 






---








 **Homework questions** must demonstrate some effort to understand the underlying concepts. For help asking a good homework question, see: [How do I ask homework questions on Chemistry Stack Exchange?](https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/141/how-do-i-ask-homework-questions-on-chemistry-stack-exchange)




Closed 3 years ago.








[Improve this question](/posts/127665/edit) 



Would a set of chemical data with a relative standard deviation of 0.6% or 20% be more reproducible?


My reasoning is that because it's easier to make mistakes and have a wide range of data, the 20% would be more reproducible, even though it is not accurate.


A RSD of 0.6% would be extremely precise and therefore harder to reproduce.


At least this is my thoughts. Thank you for your help!




Both accuracy and precision are desired for proper data analysis. They are not mutually exclusive. This is heavily dependent on the person and the measurement tool as well. You must have heard of the idiom "A bad workman quarrels with his tools"... this is true in science as well. Even if you have million dollar instrument, and the operator is unskilled, the data will be garbage. The premise that it is easier to make mistakes is not valid and generally RSD of 1-5 % is routine in scientific measurements. An RSD of 20% would be considered too high. 


 1

Think in terms of a discrete probability distribution. Then, a small standard deviation implies that the probability mass functions (PMFs, aka spikes) near the center of the distribution are higher. Conversely, a large standard deviation implies smaller PMFs spread out.


A higher PMF implies a greater likelihood of matching a result near the center of the distribution. Hence, more likely reproducible.


 1