Bonferroni Correction Calculator

Adjust significance levels for multiple comparisons to control Type I error

About Bonferroni Correction

Bonferroni: α_adj = α / m (most conservative)

Sidak: α_adj = 1 - (1 - α)^(1/m) (slightly less conservative)

Holm: Step-down procedure (more powerful than Bonferroni)

When to use: When performing multiple statistical tests to avoid inflated Type I error.

What Is the Bonferroni Correction?

The Bonferroni correction is a statistical adjustment used to control the family-wise error rate (FWER) when performing multiple hypothesis tests simultaneously. When you run m independent tests each at α = 0.05, the probability of at least one false positive is 1 − (0.95)^m — with 20 tests, that probability jumps to 64%, meaning you are more likely than not to declare a spurious significant result. The Bonferroni correction prevents this by dividing α by the number of tests: α_adj = α / m.

This calculator goes beyond simple Bonferroni correction. It also provides the Sidak correction (α_sidak = 1 − (1−α)^(1/m)), which is slightly less conservative, and Holm's step-down procedure, which is uniformly more powerful than Bonferroni while still controlling FWER. When you enter actual p-values, the calculator displays adjusted p-values and significance verdicts for each test, plus summary counts of how many tests survive each correction method.

Multiple Comparison Correction Formulae

Each correction method adjusts the significance threshold differently. Bonferroni is the simplest and most conservative; Sidak is mathematically derived for independent tests; Holm's procedure applies a step-down approach that is more powerful.

Bonferroni & Related Corrections

α_Bonf = α / m, α_Sidak = 1 − (1−α)^(1/m), Holm: α_(k) = α / (m−k+1)

Where:

  • α= Original family-wise significance level (commonly 0.05)
  • m= Number of independent hypothesis tests being performed
  • α_Bonf= Bonferroni-adjusted per-test significance threshold
  • α_Sidak= Sidak-adjusted threshold — slightly less conservative
  • α_(k)= Holm's threshold for the k-th smallest p-value

Interpreting Multiple Comparison Corrections

When you enter actual p-values, the calculator provides a comprehensive table showing how each test fares under different correction methods. Understanding this table helps you make informed decisions about which results remain credible after adjusting for multiplicity.

MethodApproachWhen to Use
Bonferronip_adj = min(p×m, 1)Most conservative; safest when false positives are very costly
HolmStep-down: compare ranked p-valuesMore powerful than Bonferroni, same FWER control
Sidakα_adj = 1−(1−α)^(1/m)Appropriate when tests are independent

Holm's method works by sorting p-values from smallest to largest, then comparing each against α/(m−k+1). The first non-significant result stops the procedure, and all subsequent tests are deemed non-significant regardless of their raw p-values. This sequential approach consistently identifies more true positives than Bonferroni while maintaining strict FWER control.

How to Use This Calculator

Using the multiple comparison correction calculator:

  1. Set the original alpha: Choose your family-wise significance level — 0.05, 0.01, 0.10, or 0.001 from the dropdown. This is the overall probability of making at least one Type I error across all tests.
  2. Enter p-values (optional): Provide comma-separated p-values from your individual hypothesis tests. The calculator will adjust each one and show which survive correction. If you do not enter p-values, provide the number of tests below.
  3. Or enter number of tests: If you have not yet computed p-values but want to determine the adjusted alpha threshold, simply enter the total number of comparisons you plan to make.
  4. Read the results: The calculator displays adjusted alphas for Bonferroni and Sidak, plus a detailed p-value table with Bonferroni-adjusted values and Holm significance verdicts when p-values are provided.

Real-World Applications

Multiple comparison corrections are essential in genomics and bioinformatics, where researchers routinely test thousands or millions of genetic variants for association with disease. Without correction, massive studies would produce oceans of false positives. The Bonferroni correction is standard in genome-wide association studies (GWAS), where the significance threshold is typically set at 5 × 10⁻⁸ after adjusting for roughly one million independent tests.

In clinical trials, multiple comparison corrections apply when analyzing multiple endpoints, comparing multiple dose groups to a placebo, or conducting interim analyses. Regulatory agencies like the FDA require pre-specified multiplicity adjustment plans to ensure the overall Type I error rate does not exceed 5%. In psychology and neuroscience, corrections are required when analyzing multiple brain regions, time points, or behavioral measures in the same study.

In A/B testing and digital marketing, running multiple variants against a control without correction inflates the false discovery rate. Companies testing 10 landing page variants at α = 0.05 would expect about 40% chance of at least one false positive — leading to misguided business decisions based on random noise.

Worked Examples

Adjusting Five ANOVA Post-Hoc Tests

Problem:

A researcher runs five pairwise comparisons after ANOVA, obtaining p-values: 0.01, 0.03, 0.04, 0.08, 0.15. With α = 0.05, which comparisons remain significant after Bonferroni and Holm correction?

Solution Steps:

  1. 1Step 1: Enter α = 0.05 and p-values 0.01,0.03,0.04,0.08,0.15 into the calculator.
  2. 2Step 2: Bonferroni α = 0.05/5 = 0.01. Only p = 0.01 (exactly) meets this threshold — the other four fail.
  3. 3Step 3: Holm's procedure: Sort p-values: 0.01,0.03,0.04,0.08,0.15. Compare to 0.01,0.0125,0.0167,0.025,0.05 respectively.
  4. 4Step 4: p₁=0.01 ≤ 0.01 ✓. p₂=0.03 > 0.0125 ✗ → stop. Only the first test is significant under Holm; all others are non-significant.

Result:

Under uncorrected α=0.05, three tests would be 'significant' (0.01, 0.03, 0.04). After correction, only one test (p=0.01) survives both Bonferroni and Holm. The other four comparisons lack sufficient evidence after accounting for multiplicity — a sobering but statistically honest conclusion.

Genomic Study Planning

Problem:

A geneticist plans to test 50,000 SNPs for disease association. What Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold should be used? How many false positives would be expected without correction at α = 0.05?

Solution Steps:

  1. 1Step 1: Enter α = 0.05 and number of tests m = 50,000 (without entering p-values).
  2. 2Step 2: Bonferroni threshold = 0.05/50000 = 1.0 × 10⁻⁶ or 0.000001. Sidak = 1 − (0.95)^(1/50000) ≈ 1.026 × 10⁻⁶.
  3. 3Step 3: Without correction: expected false positives = 50,000 × 0.05 = 2,500 spurious associations.
  4. 4Step 4: With the Bonferroni threshold of 10⁻⁶, only SNPs with extremely strong evidence survive — reducing false positives to approximately 0.05 expected across the entire study.

Result:

Without correction, the study would produce approximately 2,500 false positive associations by chance alone. The Bonferroni-corrected threshold of 1 × 10⁻⁶ controls the family-wise error rate, expecting only about 0.05 false positives across all 50,000 tests.

Multiple Endpoint Clinical Trial

Problem:

A trial measures 8 clinical endpoints and obtains p-values: 0.002,0.015,0.022,0.041,0.089,0.120,0.250,0.410. Using α=0.05 with Holm correction, which endpoints are significant?

Solution Steps:

  1. 1Step 1: Enter the 8 p-values and set α = 0.05. Bonferroni α = 0.05/8 = 0.00625.
  2. 2Step 2: Holm sorted: 0.002,0.015,0.022,0.041,0.089,0.120,0.250,0.410. Compare to 0.00625,0.00714,0.00833,0.01,0.0125,0.0167,0.025,0.05.
  3. 3Step 3: p₁=0.002 ≤ 0.00625 ✓. p₂=0.015 > 0.00714 ✗ → stop. Only the first endpoint is significant.
  4. 4Step 4: The trial can claim significance on endpoint 1 only. The other 7 endpoints lack evidence after multiplicity adjustment.

Result:

Despite having 4 endpoints nominally significant at uncorrected α=0.05, only the strongest finding (p=0.002) survives multiplicity correction. This illustrates the stringency of FWER control — a necessary precaution for regulatory submission credibility.

Tips & Best Practices

  • Bonferroni is the safest default — use it when false positives are costly (regulatory submissions, publication).
  • Holm's step-down procedure is uniformly more powerful than Bonferroni with the same FWER control — generally preferred.
  • Always report the number of tests performed alongside corrected p-values — transparency is critical.
  • If your tests are highly correlated, Bonferroni overcorrects — consider the effective number of independent tests instead.
  • For exploratory analyses with hundreds or thousands of tests, switch from FWER to FDR control using Benjamini-Hochberg.

Frequently Asked Questions

FWER (family-wise error rate) controls the probability of ANY false positive across all tests. FDR (false discovery rate) controls the expected proportion of false positives among rejected hypotheses. Bonferroni and Holm control FWER, making them conservative — they prioritize avoiding even a single false positive. Benjamini-Hochberg controls FDR, allowing some false positives in exchange for greater power to detect true effects. Use FWER in confirmatory settings (clinical trials); use FDR in exploratory settings (genomics, screening).
Bonferroni becomes excessively conservative when the number of tests is large (m > 100) and when tests are positively correlated. With correlated tests, the effective number of independent comparisons is smaller than m, and Bonferroni overcorrects. In such cases, consider Holm's step-down procedure, permutation-based corrections, or the false discovery rate approach instead.
It depends on the context and inferential goal. In confirmatory research intended to support regulatory or publication claims, correction is essential. In exploratory or hypothesis-generating studies, reporting uncorrected p-values alongside corrected ones and clearly labeling the analysis as exploratory is acceptable. The key is transparency: always report how many tests were performed and whether corrections were applied.
Holm's method sorts p-values from smallest to largest and compares each against sequentially less stringent thresholds: α/m, α/(m−1), α/(m−2), etc. The first p-value that fails to meet its threshold stops the procedure. Holm always identifies at least as many significant results as Bonferroni and may identify more, while maintaining the same FWER control. It is the recommended step-down alternative to Bonferroni.
The Sidak correction computes α_sidak = 1 − (1−α)^(1/m), which is derived from the assumption that all tests are independent. It produces a slightly larger (less conservative) threshold than Bonferroni. For example, with α=0.05 and 10 tests, Bonferroni gives 0.005 and Sidak gives 0.00512. The difference is negligible for small m but becomes more noticeable with larger numbers of tests.

Sources & References

Last updated: 2026-06-06

💡

Help us improve!

How would you rate the Bonferroni Correction Calculator?

<>

Editorial Note

MyCalcBuddy Editorial Team

This page is maintained as an educational calculator reference.

Source

Formula Source: Standard Mathematical References

by Various

UpdatedLast reviewed: May 2026
CheckedFormula checks are based on standard references and internal QA review.