Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

14.3K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
14.3K
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

9.4K
Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
9.4K
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test01:00

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

6.8K
When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...
6.8K
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

8.5K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
8.5K
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

547
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
547

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Quality in Australian Health Care Study 2: a national imperative for safer care.

Internal medicine journal·2026
Same author

Mind the gap: Adherence to denosumab dosing and cessation guidelines in Australian residential aged care.

British journal of clinical pharmacology·2026
Same author

Evaluating Australia's "MyMedicare" voluntary patient registration system: the prospective evaluation of patient registration study protocol.

Frontiers in health services·2026
Same author

Is independent double-checking superior to single-checking in medication administration error detection? A randomised controlled simulation trial.

BMJ quality & safety·2026
Same author

A 360-Degree View of Unprofessional Behaviours Between Nurses and Between Nurses and Medical Colleagues: A Secondary Analysis of a Mixed-Method Evaluation.

Journal of nursing management·2026
Same author

'A Joint Effort': Stakeholders' Perspectives of Medication Management Reviews in Australian Residential Aged Care.

Australasian journal on ageing·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 8, 2026

Revised and Neuroimaging-Compatible Versions of the Dual Task Screen
07:52

Revised and Neuroimaging-Compatible Versions of the Dual Task Screen

Published on: October 5, 2020

3.9K

Independent versus collaborative double-checking for errors on a simulated rail control task.

Ryan D McMullan1, Nanda Aryal1, Ling Li1

  • 1Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Applied Ergonomics
|December 19, 2025
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Independent double-checking is more effective for error detection than collaborative double-checking. Matching tasks also improved accuracy, while interruptions did not impact performance in a rail control simulation.

Keywords:
Double-checkingError detectionRail-control

More Related Videos

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System
10:09

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System

Published on: October 1, 2019

7.0K
Simulation of a Scaled Assembly Process with Collaboration of a Robotic Arm and Monitoring through a Vision System for Quality Control
05:47

Simulation of a Scaled Assembly Process with Collaboration of a Robotic Arm and Monitoring through a Vision System for Quality Control

Published on: August 29, 2025

381

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 8, 2026

Revised and Neuroimaging-Compatible Versions of the Dual Task Screen
07:52

Revised and Neuroimaging-Compatible Versions of the Dual Task Screen

Published on: October 5, 2020

3.9K
Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System
10:09

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System

Published on: October 1, 2019

7.0K
Simulation of a Scaled Assembly Process with Collaboration of a Robotic Arm and Monitoring through a Vision System for Quality Control
05:47

Simulation of a Scaled Assembly Process with Collaboration of a Robotic Arm and Monitoring through a Vision System for Quality Control

Published on: August 29, 2025

381

Area of Science:

  • Human Factors
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Industrial Safety

Background:

  • Double-checking is a critical safety protocol in high-risk industries to prevent errors.
  • Understanding the optimal methods for double-checking is essential for enhancing workplace safety and efficiency.
  • Previous research has not fully elucidated the comparative effectiveness of different double-checking strategies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the effectiveness of independent versus collaborative double-checking in detecting errors.
  • To investigate the impact of task type (matching vs. critical analysis) on error detection accuracy.
  • To assess the influence of interruptions on the performance of double-checking tasks.

Main Methods:

  • 198 participants engaged in a 32-minute rail control simulation task.
  • Participants performed either matching or critical analysis and assimilation tasks.
  • The study incorporated interruptions during task performance to simulate real-world conditions.

Main Results:

  • Independent double-checking led to significantly higher accuracy in identifying misrouted trains compared to collaborative double-checking.
  • Tasks requiring matching yielded greater response accuracy than those involving critical analysis and assimilation.
  • Interruptions did not demonstrate a significant effect on participants' error detection performance.

Conclusions:

  • Independent double-checking strategies appear more effective for error detection than collaborative approaches.
  • Task design, favoring simpler matching over complex analysis, can enhance error identification.
  • Further research may explore the nuances of interruptions in different high-risk contexts.