. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 18.

Published in final edited form as: Obstet Gynecol. 2010 May;115(5):1007–1013. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d9f4b6

Table 4.

Habermans tests to compare rankings for RACD and 6 outcomes in both models

		Percentage of Outcome Higher-than-Expected
		Maternal Composite	Infant Composite	PSI 17	PSI 18	PSI 19	PSI 20
Model 1	Lower -than -Expected (N=88)	29 (33.0%)	9 (10.2%)	14 (15.9%)	22 (25.0%)	21 (23.9%)	10 (11.4%)
	Expected (N=187)	30 (16.0%)	11 (5.9%)	8 (4.3%)	15 (8.0%)	30 (16.0%)	5 (2.7%)
	Higher -than -Expected (N=86)	3 (3.5%)	2 (2.3%)	4 (4.7%)	5 (5.8%)	8 (9.3%)	0 (0.0%)
	p-value	< 0.001	0.04	0.001	< 0.001	0.001	< 0.001
Model 2	Lower -than -Expected (N=53)	22 (41.5%)	6 (11.3%)	7 (13.2%)	17 (32.1%)	11 (20.8%)	8 (15.1%)
	Expected (N=238)	37 (15.6%)	15 (6.3%)	18 (7.6%)	20 (8.4%)	39 (16.4%)	7 (2.9%)
	Higher -than -Expected (N=70)	3 (4.3%)	1 (1.4%)	1 (1.4%)	5 (7.1%)	9 (12.9%)	0 (0.0%)
	p-value	< 0.001	0.13	0.04	< 0.001	0.14	< 0.001

p-values calculated by the Haberman method