A Reinterpretation and Extension of McNemar’s Test

The McNemar test is extended to multiple groups based on a latent class model incorporating classes representing consistent responders and a single latent error rate. The method is illustrated with data from a CDC survey of immunizations for flu and pneumonia for which a part-heterogeneous model is selected for interpretation

Reports of injury risks and reasons for choice of sleep environments for infants and toddlers

OBJECTIVE: Compare mothers\u27 reports of injuries for infants and toddlers sleeping with crib-bumpers/mesh-liners/no-barriers and reasons for these sleep environment choices. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of mothers subscribing to a parenting magazine and using crib bumpers (n = 224), mesh liners (n = 262), and no barriers (n = 842). Analyses of four possible injuries (face-covered, climb-out/fall, slat-entrapment, hit-head) including multivariate logistic regression adjusted for missing data/demographics and Chi squared analyses of reasons for mothers\u27 choices. RESULTS: Maternal reports of finding infants/toddlers with face covered had 3.5 times higher adjusted odds (aOR) for crib bumper versus mesh liner use. Breathing difficulties and wedgings were reported for infants/toddlers using crib bumpers but not mesh liners. Climb-outs/falls showed no significant difference in aORs for crib bumpers versus no-barriers and mesh liners versus no barriers. Reports of slat-entrapment were less likely for mothers using crib bumpers and mesh liners than using no barrier (aOR = .28 and .32). Reports of hit-heads were less likely for crib bumpers vs no barrier (aOR = .38) with no significant difference between mesh liners versus no barrier use. Mothers using crib bumpers and mesh liners felt their choice prevented slat-entrapment (89%, 91%); 93.5% of crib bumper users felt their choice prevented hit-heads. Significantly more mesh liner than crib bumper users chose them because There is no suffocation risk (64.1% vs. 40.6%), while 83.6% of no-barrier users chose them because I was concerned about suffocation risk. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Mothers appeared to be more concerned about preventing minor risks than suffocation. Understanding reasons for mothers\u27 use of barriers/no-barriers is important in tailoring counseling for mothers with infants/toddlers