PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11597053

Three programs for computing Dunn-Sidák critical values.

Abstract

The Dunn-Sidák multiple comparison procedure is used to test hypotheses and construct confidence intervals for two or more a priori nonorthogonal contrasts for population means. The procedure uses a levels that are not available in conventional t tables. In 1977 Games prepared a table of two tailed critical values that simplifies using the procedure. Researchers are accustomed to doubling alpha in a two-tailed t table to obtain the critical value in one tail. Unfortunately, doubling alpha in Games's table always gives one tailed critical values that are too small. Computational routines using the t inverse function in Microsoft Excel 98, SAS, and SPSS are presented for obtaining Dunn-Sidák one- and two-tailed critical values for ant familywise error rate, number of contrasts, and error degrees of freedom.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R E Kirk, F Natanegara. 2001. Three programs for computing Dunn-Sidák critical values.. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2001.88.3c.1067

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Ethnographic study of incidence and severity of intravenous drug errors.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and clinical importance of errors in the preparation and administration of intravenous drugs and the stages of the process in which errors occur. DESIGN: Prospective ethnographic study using disguised observation. PARTICIPANTS: Nurses who prepared and administered intravenous drugs. SETTING: 10 wards in a teaching and non-teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number, type, and clinical importance of errors. RESULTS: 249 errors were identified. At least one error occurred in 212 out of 430 intravenous drug doses (49%, 95% confidence interval 45% to 54%). Three doses (1%) had potentially severe errors, 126 (29%) potentially moderate errors, and 83 (19%) potentially minor errors. Most errors occurred when giving bolus doses or making up drugs that required multiple step preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of intravenous drug errors was high. Although most errors would cause only short term adverse effects, a few could have been serious. A combination of reducing the amount of preparation on the ward, training, and technology to administer slow bolus doses would probably have the greatest effect on error rates.

Confidence Intervals↗