On the Meaning of “Sensitivity”: A Rejoinder

Abstract

Although reluctant to monopolize debate on the meaning of “sensitivity”, we feel compelled to respond to Dr. Pardue’s critique (1), which reveals certain misunderstandings and misrepresents our arguments (2). Pardue claims that the “formal definition of sensitivity” is associated with the response/stimulus ratio. But formal definitions have differed, certain authorities defining sensitivity in terms of the detection limit. Elimination of the contradictions underlying the scientific use of the word has been our objective in raising this issue. Contrary to Pardue’s belief (1), we do not argue that the “slope interpretation conflicts with the formal definition”. We comprehend the equivalence of the “slope” and “response/stimulus” definitions, but object to both on the grounds that they conflict with the fundamental meaning of sensitivity. We maintain, in short, that neither is a valid indicator of the ability of an instrument to sense small changes “in that to which it is designed to respond”, and hence of its sensitivity in the generally accepted sense.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.