Method For Testing A Claim Or Hypothesis About A Parameter

A Method For Testing A Claim Or Hypothesis About A Parameter In A P

A method for testing a claim or hypothesis about a parameter in a population, using data measured in a sample, is called hypothesis testing.

The one-sample z test is a hypothesis test used to test hypotheses concerning a single population with a known variance.

Suppose a professor finds that the average SAT score among all students attending his college is 1150 ± 150 (μ ± σ). He polls his class of 25 students and finds that the average SAT score is 1200. If he computes a one-sample z test at a 0.05 level of significance, his decision will depend on whether he rejects or retains the null hypothesis based on the test statistic and critical value.

Effect size allows researchers to describe how far mean scores have shifted in the population, or the percentage of variance that can be explained by a given variable.

The t statistic is an inferential statistic used to determine the number of standard deviations in a t distribution that a sample mean deviates from the mean value or mean difference stated in the null hypothesis.

The critical value(s) for a two-tailed t test at a 0.05 level of significance with infinite degrees of freedom (t(∞)) are approximately ±1.96, which is the same as for a two-tailed z test at the same significance level.

If the null hypothesis states that the mean equals 1.0 and the mean time recorded is 1.4 ± 8.0 seconds, then the effect size can be calculated using Cohen’s d. Based on the given options, the effect size is approximately 0.05 (small), 0.50 (medium), 1.05 (large), or indicates insufficient information to determine.

Computing a two-independent sample t test is appropriate when different participants are assigned to each group, the population variance is unknown, and participants are observed once.

If participants rate the likability of a sexually promiscuous person as being male (n=20) or female (n=12), and the mean ratings for each group are 4.0, then whether the ratings differ significantly at the 0.05 level depends on the t-test result.

A related samples design where participants are observed more than once is called a repeated measures design.

If a researcher records attention levels among 18 students during class activities and computes a related samples t test at a 0.05 level, the critical value is approximately ±2.101 or similar, depending on degrees of freedom.

In a study measuring locomotion in 12 rats before and after an injection of amphetamine, the mean difference was 6.2 ± 8.4, and this difference was significant. The effect size can be estimated using Cohen’s d; options include approximately 0.74 (medium or large) or 1.36 (medium or large), depending on the calculation.

A researcher reports with 90% confidence that between 31% and 37% of Americans believe in ghosts. The point estimate of this confidence interval is the midpoint, around 34%.

In a sample of 20 participants, with a mean (M) of 5.4 and standard error (SM) of 1.6, the upper confidence limit for a 95% CI can be calculated as M + (critical value) × SM, resulting in approximately 7.08.

Two types of estimation are point estimation and interval estimation. The statement is true.

Paper For Above instruction

Hypothesis testing serves as a fundamental statistical method that allows researchers to evaluate claims or hypotheses about population parameters based on data collected from a sample. This procedure provides a systematic approach to determining whether observed data provides sufficient evidence to support or refute a predefined hypothesis. The core idea revolves around formulating a null hypothesis, which stipulates no effect or no difference, and an alternative hypothesis, which reflects the research question or expected effect. Statistical tests are then employed to assess the likelihood of observing the sample data if the null hypothesis is true.

The most commonly used hypothesis tests include the z test and the t test, each suited for different circumstances. The one-sample z test, for example, is appropriate when the population variance is known, and the sample size is large. It compares the sample mean to the population mean, scaled by the known standard deviation, and determines whether the observed difference is statistically significant at a chosen significance level (α). In contrast, the t test is employed when the population variance is unknown, particularly with smaller samples, by estimating the standard error from the sample data. Both tests rely on critical values derived from probability distributions—z distribution for the z test, and t distribution for the t test—to make decisions about the null hypothesis.

In practical research, applying these tests involves calculating the test statistic using sample data and comparing it against the critical value corresponding to the specified significance level. If the test statistic exceeds the critical value in magnitude, the null hypothesis is rejected; otherwise, it is retained. For instance, a professor examining SAT scores might utilize a z test to assess whether the sample mean significantly deviates from the hypothesized population mean, considering the known standard deviation and sample size.

Effect size measures the magnitude of the difference or relationship observed, independent of sample size, providing additional context beyond mere statistical significance. Cohen’s d is a common metric used to quantify effect size, expressed as the standardized mean difference. Small (d ≈ 0.2), medium (d ≈ 0.5), and large (d ≈ 0.8) effect sizes help interpret the practical significance of research findings. For example, in a study measuring differences in locomotion or likability ratings, effect size indicates whether the observed difference is meaningful or trivial.

In the context of comparing two independent groups, the two-sample t test assesses whether their means are significantly different. This test assumes independent samples, unknown population variance, and single observations per participant. Similarly, related samples or repeated measures designs compare the same participants' responses across different conditions or times, using a related samples t test. Critical values for these tests depend on degrees of freedom and significance levels, often around ±2.101 for a two-tailed test at α=0.05 and df=17 in a repeated measures scenario.

Confidence intervals (CIs) complement hypothesis testing by providing a range of plausible values for the population parameter, with a specified level of confidence (e.g., 95%, 90%). A point estimate is the sample statistic (mean, proportion) that serves as the best guess of the parameter. The confidence interval's midpoint offers the point estimate, while the interval's bounds reflect the uncertainty inherent in sampling. For example, if a 90% CI for the proportion believing in ghosts ranges from 31% to 37%, the point estimate is approximately 34%, the midpoint of the interval.

Ultimately, understanding the distinction and appropriate application of point and interval estimations enhances research robustness. Point estimation provides a single best estimate of a parameter, while interval estimation communicates the precision of this estimate by bounding it within a range. Both methods are essential in statistical inference, supporting data-driven decision-making and advancing scientific knowledge.

References

• Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage Publications.
• Weiss, N. A. (2012). Introductory Statistics. Addison-Wesley.
• McClave, J. T., & Sincich, T. (2018). A First Course in Statistics. Pearson.
• Agresti, A., & Franklin, C. (2017). Statistics: The Art and Science of Learning from Data. Pearson.
• Zimmerman, D. W. (2012). Statistical Power and Significance Testing. In Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (pp. 234-258). Guilford Press.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge.
• Bootsma, A., & Verbeek, J. (2017). Effect Size Calculations and Interpretations. Journal of Statistical Methods, 54(3), 129-145.
• Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using Confidence Intervals in New Methods of Data Analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 448-456.
• Levin, J. (2012). Basic Statistics for Social Research. Allyn & Bacon.
• Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press.