Elements and Performance Criteria

RANGE STATEMENT
The range statement relates to the unit of competency as a whole. It allows for different work environments and situations that may affect performance. Bold italicised wording, if used in the performance criteria, is detailed below. Essential operating conditions that may be present with training and assessment (depending on the work situation, needs of the candidate, accessibility of the item, and local industry and regional contexts) may also be included.
Codes of practice
Where reference is made to industry codes of practice and Australian/international standards, it is expected the latest version will be used
Standards, codes, procedures and/or enterprise requirements
Standards, codes, procedures and/or enterprise requirements may include:
Australian and international standards, such as:
AS ISO 1000-1998 The international system of units (SI) and its application
AS ISO 17025-2005 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories
AS/NZS ISO 10005:2006 Quality management systems - Guidelines for quality plans
AS/NZS ISO 10012:2004 Measurement management systems - Requirements for measurement processes and measuring equipment
AS/NZS ISO 9000 Set:2008 Quality management systems set
ISO 5725 Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results
ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008 Uncertainty of measurement - Part 3 Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM)
Eurachem/CITAC Guide CG4 Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement
Australian code of good manufacturing practice for medicinal products (GMP)
enterprise quality manual and customer quality plan
equipment manuals and warranty, supplier catalogues and handbooks
Eurolab technical report
inspection test plans, sampling plans for sites
NATA supplementary requirements for the relevant field of testing (e.g. field application document)
NATA Accreditation programs requirements
NATA Technical notes, policy circulars and guides
national measurement regulations and guidelines
Nordtest guide
principles of good laboratory practice (GLP)
sampling and test procedures and standard operating procedures (SOPs)
Data and results
Data and results may include:
entries in worksheets, spreadsheets or databases that may be linked to information management systems
observations, measurements, derived data and calculations
results of tests and analyses
Technical records
Technical records may include:
request forms, service agreements and contracts
worksheets, work books, check sheets and work notes
data and information generated during sampling, testing and/or calibrations that indicate whether quality or process parameters have been achieved
control graphs
external, internal test reports and calibration certificates
clients notes, papers and feedback
listing of data, personnel responsible for sampling, performance of each test/calibration and checking of results
Calculations
Calculations may be performed:
with or without a calculator or computer software, such as spreadsheets, databases and statistical packages
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis may include the use of:
standard deviation, standard deviation of the mean, histograms and frequency plots
probability and normal probability plots
run charts and control charts, such as Shewhart and CuSum
regression methods for calibration, linearity checks and comparing analytical methods
analysis of variance (ANOVA)
data acceptability tests, such as T and F
Estimates of uncertainty
Estimates of uncertainty may include components such as:
calibration uncertainty
instability or drift in the calibrated instrument
repeatability of the results
resolution or readability of the instrument
environmental influences such as temperature, air pressure, humidity, vibration, electrical noise and gravity
reference material uncertainty
factors arising from using an instrument under a different operating environment or procedures (e.g. orientation of a transducer, immersion depth of a temperature probe)
reproducibility of quality control data
Human and environmental factors
Human and environmental factors may include:
technician preparing the sample and/or performing the test did not apply the test method correctly
inadequate attention to detail, fatigue, stress
inadequate hygiene or sterility
unacceptable dust, radiation, humidity, temperature and illumination levels
electromagnetic disturbances
unacceptable variations to gas, electricity and water supply
unacceptable sound and vibration levels
Sample preparation problems
Sample preparation problems could result from:
use of incorrect sample containers
incorrect particle size
contamination
incorrect sample handling, storage or conditioning (filtered/non-filtered, temperature control, moisture content and preservation)
incorrect matrix
incomplete digest
Sources of interference
Sources of interference may include:
presence of contaminants
spectral interference (e.g. in Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy)
physical interference (e.g. in Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy)
matrix effects
masking of analytes
Preventative/corrective actions
Preventative/corrective actions may include:
more regular use of certified reference materials
internal quality controls using secondary reference materials
participation in inter-laboratory comparison or proficiency testing programs
replicate tests or calibrations using the same or different methods
retesting or recalibration of retained items
correlation of results for different characteristics of an item
additional audits and management reviews
more regular quality checks on consumables
increased staff observation, supervision and/or training
more detailed sample specifications, test methods and procedures
Confidence level
The most common confidence level is 95% in accordance with the National Measurement Act, 1960. However, some applications require a higher level of confidence
Occupational health and safety (OHS) and environmental management requirements
OHS and environmental management requirements:
all operations must comply with enterprise OHS and environmental management requirements, which may be imposed through state/territory or federal legislation - these requirements must not be compromised at any time
all operations assume the potentially hazardous nature of samples and require standard precautions to be applied
where relevant, users should access and apply current industry understanding of infection control issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and State and Territory Departments of Health

EVIDENCE GUIDE
The Evidence Guide provides advice on assessment and must be read in conjunction with the performance criteria, required skills and knowledge, range statement and the Assessment Guidelines for the Training Package.

Overview of assessment

Critical aspects for assessment and evidence required to demonstrate competency in this unit
Assessors should ensure that candidates can:
verify the accuracy and completeness of data, results and technical records for specified tests
issue specified test results in accordance with authorisation and enterprise procedures
investigate unexpected or unacceptable results in a logical and efficient manner
explain test results to clients.

Context of and specific resources for assessment
This unit of competency is to be assessed in the workplace or simulated workplace environment.
This unit of competency may be assessed with:
relevantMSL09 units of competency that cover the ability to perform the tests involved, relevant data analysis and quality assurance procedures.
Resources may include:
data sets and records
test methods and description of test setup
computer and relevant software or laboratory information system
relevant workplace procedures.

Method of assessment
The following assessment methods are suggested:
review of records and test results verified and issued by the candidate
feedback from supervisors and clients regarding the candidate's ability to issue authorised test results
review of recommendations and reports prepared by the candidate
questions to assess understanding of procedures governing the authorised issue of test results, acceptability of data/results, sources of uncertainty and preventative/corrective actions.
In all cases, practical assessment should be supported by questions to assess underpinning knowledge and those aspects of competency which are difficult to assess directly.
Where applicable, reasonable adjustment must be made to work environments and training situations to accommodate ethnicity, age, gender, demographics and disability.
Access must be provided to appropriate learning and/or assessment support when required.
The language, literacy and numeracy demands of assessment should not be greater than those required to undertake the unit of competency in a work like environment.

This competency in practice
Industry representatives have provided the case studies below to illustrate the practical application of this unit of competency and to show its relevance in a workplace setting.
Calibration
A calibration technician/specialist has completed testing an instrument and places it with the test report for the relevant signatory to authorise. The laboratory manager physically examines the item to ensure all accessories have been applied. The manager checks the test report for validity and correctness and ensures any abnormalities or departures from normal or specified conditions are reported appropriately. He/she confirms that all data transfers and calculations are accurate and in accordance with SOPs, industry guidelines and the laboratory's accreditation requirements. The manager also ensures that all relevant databases are updated and client confidentiality is maintained. He/she signs the relevant certificates and reports and authorises the release of the results and return of the item to the client.
Construction materials testing
A laboratory supervisor, who is authorised to issue Atterberg Limit test results, receives a set of QC data for gravel that is to be supplied to a local council. The technician has provided Liquid Limit, Plastic Index, Linear Shrinkage data for three samples:
1. 35%, 7%, 3%
2. 35%, 4%, 3%
3. 33%, 5%, 2%
Using a well known 'rule of thumb' that the P.I./L.S. ratio for gravel samples is usually between 2 and 3, the supervisor notes that the ratio for the second sample is 1.3. This indicates a possible error. Although the most likely source of error is in the determination of the Plastic Limit, he/she systematically reviews all of the technician's work. Firstly, he/she checks that all three samples are from the same source and whether their appearance was recorded on receipt. He/she reviews the relevant data records by checking for simple transcription errors, moisture calculation errors, variation in the weights of containers and straightforward weighing errors. He/she also checks if the samples were properly dried to constant mass. Then he/she accesses the client's previous test records to see if any similar sample variability has occurred in the past. After completing all the checks he/she can do from his/her desk, he/she talks to the tester and asks to see the rolled specimens before they disposed of. A visual inspection confirms his/her hunch that the technician's rolling technique is not good enough to obtain reliable results. He/she arranges for the test to be repeated under supervision using surplus sample material and also organises additional training.
Construction materials testing
Asphalt is being laid at night on a busy motorway and the road must be available for traffic by 6 am each day. The construction company's own laboratory is responsible for conducting compaction tests for each lot. The specifications require a field compaction density of 95% of the laboratory compacted density and penalties apply for lots where results are <94%. A technician who is authorised to issue compaction results uses a nuclear density gauge to determine field compaction values in accordance with an established inspection test plan and test method. The data for the latest lot is 95, 94, 93, 93, 93.5, 93 and 93%. The average result is 93.5% and the shift foreman decides to roll and then re-test the lot. The repeat test indicates an average value of 93%. Before completing the test report, the technician reviews all the data, calculations and record of 'standard counts' for the gauge. He/she also checks the laboratory compaction results, gradings and bitumen content for consistency and compliance with mix design. These results indicate a trend of the mix design moving out of specification. The technician informs the plant manager that the test results indicate unacceptable compaction. The manager maintains that the results are borderline and points out that the company has already paid $250K in penalties this month. He/she asks the technician to re-check the compaction results and repeat the tests at different inspection points. He/she also suggests that the technician should find a better sample for the maximum density test. The technician reviews the results and re-tests further samples but there are no new results that would justify any change to the test report. Therefore, the technician issues the test report unaltered.