hypothesis testing vs significance

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Unit 12: Significance tests (hypothesis testing)

About this unit.

Significance tests give us a formal process for using sample data to evaluate the likelihood of some claim about a population value. Learn how to conduct significance tests and calculate p-values to see how likely a sample result is to occur by random chance. You'll also see how we use p-values to make conclusions about hypotheses.

The idea of significance tests

• Simple hypothesis testing (Opens a modal)
• Idea behind hypothesis testing (Opens a modal)
• Examples of null and alternative hypotheses (Opens a modal)
• P-values and significance tests (Opens a modal)
• Comparing P-values to different significance levels (Opens a modal)
• Estimating a P-value from a simulation (Opens a modal)
• Using P-values to make conclusions (Opens a modal)
• Simple hypothesis testing Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Writing null and alternative hypotheses Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Estimating P-values from simulations Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Error probabilities and power

• Introduction to Type I and Type II errors (Opens a modal)
• Type 1 errors (Opens a modal)
• Examples identifying Type I and Type II errors (Opens a modal)
• Introduction to power in significance tests (Opens a modal)
• Examples thinking about power in significance tests (Opens a modal)
• Consequences of errors and significance (Opens a modal)
• Type I vs Type II error Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Error probabilities and power Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Tests about a population proportion

• Constructing hypotheses for a significance test about a proportion (Opens a modal)
• Conditions for a z test about a proportion (Opens a modal)
• Reference: Conditions for inference on a proportion (Opens a modal)
• Calculating a z statistic in a test about a proportion (Opens a modal)
• Calculating a P-value given a z statistic (Opens a modal)
• Making conclusions in a test about a proportion (Opens a modal)
• Writing hypotheses for a test about a proportion Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Conditions for a z test about a proportion Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Calculating the test statistic in a z test for a proportion Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Calculating the P-value in a z test for a proportion Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Making conclusions in a z test for a proportion Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Tests about a population mean

• Writing hypotheses for a significance test about a mean (Opens a modal)
• Conditions for a t test about a mean (Opens a modal)
• Reference: Conditions for inference on a mean (Opens a modal)
• When to use z or t statistics in significance tests (Opens a modal)
• Example calculating t statistic for a test about a mean (Opens a modal)
• Using TI calculator for P-value from t statistic (Opens a modal)
• Using a table to estimate P-value from t statistic (Opens a modal)
• Comparing P-value from t statistic to significance level (Opens a modal)
• Free response example: Significance test for a mean (Opens a modal)
• Writing hypotheses for a test about a mean Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Conditions for a t test about a mean Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Calculating the test statistic in a t test for a mean Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Calculating the P-value in a t test for a mean Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!
• Making conclusions in a t test for a mean Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

More significance testing videos

• Hypothesis testing and p-values (Opens a modal)
• One-tailed and two-tailed tests (Opens a modal)
• Z-statistics vs. T-statistics (Opens a modal)
• Small sample hypothesis test (Opens a modal)
• Large sample proportion hypothesis testing (Opens a modal)

• Quality Improvement
• Talk To Minitab

Understanding Hypothesis Tests: Significance Levels (Alpha) and P values in Statistics

Topics: Hypothesis Testing , Statistics

What do significance levels and P values mean in hypothesis tests? What is statistical significance anyway? In this post, I’ll continue to focus on concepts and graphs to help you gain a more intuitive understanding of how hypothesis tests work in statistics.

To bring it to life, I’ll add the significance level and P value to the graph in my previous post in order to perform a graphical version of the 1 sample t-test. It’s easier to understand when you can see what statistical significance truly means!

Here’s where we left off in my last post . We want to determine whether our sample mean (330.6) indicates that this year's average energy cost is significantly different from last year’s average energy cost of $260.

The probability distribution plot above shows the distribution of sample means we’d obtain under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true (population mean = 260) and we repeatedly drew a large number of random samples.

I left you with a question: where do we draw the line for statistical significance on the graph? Now we'll add in the significance level and the P value, which are the decision-making tools we'll need.

We'll use these tools to test the following hypotheses:

• Null hypothesis: The population mean equals the hypothesized mean (260).
• Alternative hypothesis: The population mean differs from the hypothesized mean (260).

What Is the Significance Level (Alpha)?

The significance level, also denoted as alpha or α, is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. For example, a significance level of 0.05 indicates a 5% risk of concluding that a difference exists when there is no actual difference.

These types of definitions can be hard to understand because of their technical nature. A picture makes the concepts much easier to comprehend!

The significance level determines how far out from the null hypothesis value we'll draw that line on the graph. To graph a significance level of 0.05, we need to shade the 5% of the distribution that is furthest away from the null hypothesis.

In the graph above, the two shaded areas are equidistant from the null hypothesis value and each area has a probability of 0.025, for a total of 0.05. In statistics, we call these shaded areas the critical region for a two-tailed test. If the population mean is 260, we’d expect to obtain a sample mean that falls in the critical region 5% of the time. The critical region defines how far away our sample statistic must be from the null hypothesis value before we can say it is unusual enough to reject the null hypothesis.

Our sample mean (330.6) falls within the critical region, which indicates it is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

We can also see if it is statistically significant using the other common significance level of 0.01.

The two shaded areas each have a probability of 0.005, which adds up to a total probability of 0.01. This time our sample mean does not fall within the critical region and we fail to reject the null hypothesis. This comparison shows why you need to choose your significance level before you begin your study. It protects you from choosing a significance level because it conveniently gives you significant results!

Thanks to the graph, we were able to determine that our results are statistically significant at the 0.05 level without using a P value. However, when you use the numeric output produced by statistical software , you’ll need to compare the P value to your significance level to make this determination.

Ready for a demo of Minitab Statistical Software? Just ask! 

What Are P values?

P-values are the probability of obtaining an effect at least as extreme as the one in your sample data, assuming the truth of the null hypothesis.

This definition of P values, while technically correct, is a bit convoluted. It’s easier to understand with a graph!

To graph the P value for our example data set, we need to determine the distance between the sample mean and the null hypothesis value (330.6 - 260 = 70.6). Next, we can graph the probability of obtaining a sample mean that is at least as extreme in both tails of the distribution (260 +/- 70.6).

In the graph above, the two shaded areas each have a probability of 0.01556, for a total probability 0.03112. This probability represents the likelihood of obtaining a sample mean that is at least as extreme as our sample mean in both tails of the distribution if the population mean is 260. That’s our P value!

When a P value is less than or equal to the significance level, you reject the null hypothesis. If we take the P value for our example and compare it to the common significance levels, it matches the previous graphical results. The P value of 0.03112 is statistically significant at an alpha level of 0.05, but not at the 0.01 level.

If we stick to a significance level of 0.05, we can conclude that the average energy cost for the population is greater than 260.

A common mistake is to interpret the P-value as the probability that the null hypothesis is true. To understand why this interpretation is incorrect, please read my blog post  How to Correctly Interpret P Values .

Discussion about Statistically Significant Results

A hypothesis test evaluates two mutually exclusive statements about a population to determine which statement is best supported by the sample data. A test result is statistically significant when the sample statistic is unusual enough relative to the null hypothesis that we can reject the null hypothesis for the entire population. “Unusual enough” in a hypothesis test is defined by:

• The assumption that the null hypothesis is true—the graphs are centered on the null hypothesis value.
• The significance level—how far out do we draw the line for the critical region?
• Our sample statistic—does it fall in the critical region?

Keep in mind that there is no magic significance level that distinguishes between the studies that have a true effect and those that don’t with 100% accuracy. The common alpha values of 0.05 and 0.01 are simply based on tradition. For a significance level of 0.05, expect to obtain sample means in the critical region 5% of the time when the null hypothesis is true . In these cases, you won’t know that the null hypothesis is true but you’ll reject it because the sample mean falls in the critical region. That’s why the significance level is also referred to as an error rate!

This type of error doesn’t imply that the experimenter did anything wrong or require any other unusual explanation. The graphs show that when the null hypothesis is true, it is possible to obtain these unusual sample means for no reason other than random sampling error. It’s just luck of the draw.

Significance levels and P values are important tools that help you quantify and control this type of error in a hypothesis test. Using these tools to decide when to reject the null hypothesis increases your chance of making the correct decision.

If you like this post, you might want to read the other posts in this series that use the same graphical framework:

• Previous: Why We Need to Use Hypothesis Tests
• Next: Confidence Intervals and Confidence Levels

If you'd like to see how I made these graphs, please read: How to Create a Graphical Version of the 1-sample t-Test .

You Might Also Like

• Trust Center

© 2023 Minitab, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Settings

Hypothesis Testing (cont...)

Hypothesis testing, the null and alternative hypothesis.

In order to undertake hypothesis testing you need to express your research hypothesis as a null and alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are statements regarding the differences or effects that occur in the population. You will use your sample to test which statement (i.e., the null hypothesis or alternative hypothesis) is most likely (although technically, you test the evidence against the null hypothesis). So, with respect to our teaching example, the null and alternative hypothesis will reflect statements about all statistics students on graduate management courses.

The null hypothesis is essentially the "devil's advocate" position. That is, it assumes that whatever you are trying to prove did not happen ( hint: it usually states that something equals zero). For example, the two different teaching methods did not result in different exam performances (i.e., zero difference). Another example might be that there is no relationship between anxiety and athletic performance (i.e., the slope is zero). The alternative hypothesis states the opposite and is usually the hypothesis you are trying to prove (e.g., the two different teaching methods did result in different exam performances). Initially, you can state these hypotheses in more general terms (e.g., using terms like "effect", "relationship", etc.), as shown below for the teaching methods example:

Depending on how you want to "summarize" the exam performances will determine how you might want to write a more specific null and alternative hypothesis. For example, you could compare the mean exam performance of each group (i.e., the "seminar" group and the "lectures-only" group). This is what we will demonstrate here, but other options include comparing the distributions , medians , amongst other things. As such, we can state:

Now that you have identified the null and alternative hypotheses, you need to find evidence and develop a strategy for declaring your "support" for either the null or alternative hypothesis. We can do this using some statistical theory and some arbitrary cut-off points. Both these issues are dealt with next.

Significance levels

The level of statistical significance is often expressed as the so-called p -value . Depending on the statistical test you have chosen, you will calculate a probability (i.e., the p -value) of observing your sample results (or more extreme) given that the null hypothesis is true . Another way of phrasing this is to consider the probability that a difference in a mean score (or other statistic) could have arisen based on the assumption that there really is no difference. Let us consider this statement with respect to our example where we are interested in the difference in mean exam performance between two different teaching methods. If there really is no difference between the two teaching methods in the population (i.e., given that the null hypothesis is true), how likely would it be to see a difference in the mean exam performance between the two teaching methods as large as (or larger than) that which has been observed in your sample?

So, you might get a p -value such as 0.03 (i.e., p = .03). This means that there is a 3% chance of finding a difference as large as (or larger than) the one in your study given that the null hypothesis is true. However, you want to know whether this is "statistically significant". Typically, if there was a 5% or less chance (5 times in 100 or less) that the difference in the mean exam performance between the two teaching methods (or whatever statistic you are using) is as different as observed given the null hypothesis is true, you would reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Alternately, if the chance was greater than 5% (5 times in 100 or more), you would fail to reject the null hypothesis and would not accept the alternative hypothesis. As such, in this example where p = .03, we would reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. We reject it because at a significance level of 0.03 (i.e., less than a 5% chance), the result we obtained could happen too frequently for us to be confident that it was the two teaching methods that had an effect on exam performance.

Whilst there is relatively little justification why a significance level of 0.05 is used rather than 0.01 or 0.10, for example, it is widely used in academic research. However, if you want to be particularly confident in your results, you can set a more stringent level of 0.01 (a 1% chance or less; 1 in 100 chance or less).

One- and two-tailed predictions

When considering whether we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis, we need to consider the direction of the alternative hypothesis statement. For example, the alternative hypothesis that was stated earlier is:

The alternative hypothesis tells us two things. First, what predictions did we make about the effect of the independent variable(s) on the dependent variable(s)? Second, what was the predicted direction of this effect? Let's use our example to highlight these two points.

Sarah predicted that her teaching method (independent variable: teaching method), whereby she not only required her students to attend lectures, but also seminars, would have a positive effect (that is, increased) students' performance (dependent variable: exam marks). If an alternative hypothesis has a direction (and this is how you want to test it), the hypothesis is one-tailed. That is, it predicts direction of the effect. If the alternative hypothesis has stated that the effect was expected to be negative, this is also a one-tailed hypothesis.

Alternatively, a two-tailed prediction means that we do not make a choice over the direction that the effect of the experiment takes. Rather, it simply implies that the effect could be negative or positive. If Sarah had made a two-tailed prediction, the alternative hypothesis might have been:

In other words, we simply take out the word "positive", which implies the direction of our effect. In our example, making a two-tailed prediction may seem strange. After all, it would be logical to expect that "extra" tuition (going to seminar classes as well as lectures) would either have a positive effect on students' performance or no effect at all, but certainly not a negative effect. However, this is just our opinion (and hope) and certainly does not mean that we will get the effect we expect. Generally speaking, making a one-tail prediction (i.e., and testing for it this way) is frowned upon as it usually reflects the hope of a researcher rather than any certainty that it will happen. Notable exceptions to this rule are when there is only one possible way in which a change could occur. This can happen, for example, when biological activity/presence in measured. That is, a protein might be "dormant" and the stimulus you are using can only possibly "wake it up" (i.e., it cannot possibly reduce the activity of a "dormant" protein). In addition, for some statistical tests, one-tailed tests are not possible.

Rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis

Let's return finally to the question of whether we reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

If our statistical analysis shows that the significance level is below the cut-off value we have set (e.g., either 0.05 or 0.01), we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Alternatively, if the significance level is above the cut-off value, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and cannot accept the alternative hypothesis. You should note that you cannot accept the null hypothesis, but only find evidence against it.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.8: Significance Testing and Confidence Intervals

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 2425

• Rice University

Learning Objectives

• Explain why a confidence interval makes clear that one should not accept the null hypothesis

There is a close relationship between confidence intervals and significance tests. Specifically, if a statistic is significantly different from \(0\) at the \(0.05\) level, then the \(95\%\) confidence interval will not contain \(0\). All values in the confidence interval are plausible values for the parameter, whereas values outside the interval are rejected as plausible values for the parameter. In the Physicians' Reactions case study, the \(95\%\) confidence interval for the difference between means extends from \(2.00\) to \(11.26\). Therefore, any value lower than \(2.00\) or higher than \(11.26\) is rejected as a plausible value for the population difference between means. Since zero is lower than \(2.00\), it is rejected as a plausible value and a test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between means is significant. It turns out that the \(p\) value is \(0.0057\). There is a similar relationship between the \(99\%\) confidence interval and significance at the \(0.01\) level.

Whenever an effect is significant, all values in the confidence interval will be on the same side of zero (either all positive or all negative). Therefore, a significant finding allows the researcher to specify the direction of the effect. There are many situations in which it is very unlikely two conditions will have exactly the same population means. For example, it is practically impossible that aspirin and acetaminophen provide exactly the same degree of pain relief. Therefore, even before an experiment comparing their effectiveness is conducted, the researcher knows that the null hypothesis of exactly no difference is false. However, the researcher does not know which drug offers more relief. If a test of the difference is significant, then the direction of the difference is established because the values in the confidence interval are either all positive or all negative.

If the \(95\%\) confidence interval contains zero (more precisely, the parameter value specified in the null hypothesis), then the effect will not be significant at the \(0.05\) level. Looking at non-significant effects in terms of confidence intervals makes clear why the null hypothesis should not be accepted when it is not rejected: Every value in the confidence interval is a plausible value of the parameter. Since zero is in the interval, it cannot be rejected. However, there is an infinite number of other values in the interval (assuming continuous measurement), and none of them can be rejected either.

Statistics Made Easy

Introduction to Hypothesis Testing

A statistical hypothesis is an assumption about a population parameter .

For example, we may assume that the mean height of a male in the U.S. is 70 inches.

The assumption about the height is the statistical hypothesis and the true mean height of a male in the U.S. is the population parameter .

A hypothesis test is a formal statistical test we use to reject or fail to reject a statistical hypothesis.

The Two Types of Statistical Hypotheses

To test whether a statistical hypothesis about a population parameter is true, we obtain a random sample from the population and perform a hypothesis test on the sample data.

There are two types of statistical hypotheses:

The null hypothesis , denoted as H 0 , is the hypothesis that the sample data occurs purely from chance.

The alternative hypothesis , denoted as H 1 or H a , is the hypothesis that the sample data is influenced by some non-random cause.

Hypothesis Tests

A hypothesis test consists of five steps:

1. State the hypotheses. 

State the null and alternative hypotheses. These two hypotheses need to be mutually exclusive, so if one is true then the other must be false.

2. Determine a significance level to use for the hypothesis.

Decide on a significance level. Common choices are .01, .05, and .1. 

3. Find the test statistic.

Find the test statistic and the corresponding p-value. Often we are analyzing a population mean or proportion and the general formula to find the test statistic is: (sample statistic – population parameter) / (standard deviation of statistic)

4. Reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Using the test statistic or the p-value, determine if you can reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis based on the significance level.

The p-value  tells us the strength of evidence in support of a null hypothesis. If the p-value is less than the significance level, we reject the null hypothesis.

5. Interpret the results. 

Interpret the results of the hypothesis test in the context of the question being asked. 

The Two Types of Decision Errors

There are two types of decision errors that one can make when doing a hypothesis test:

Type I error: You reject the null hypothesis when it is actually true. The probability of committing a Type I error is equal to the significance level, often called  alpha , and denoted as α.

Type II error: You fail to reject the null hypothesis when it is actually false. The probability of committing a Type II error is called the Power of the test or  Beta , denoted as β.

One-Tailed and Two-Tailed Tests

A statistical hypothesis can be one-tailed or two-tailed.

A one-tailed hypothesis involves making a “greater than” or “less than ” statement.

For example, suppose we assume the mean height of a male in the U.S. is greater than or equal to 70 inches. The null hypothesis would be H0: µ ≥ 70 inches and the alternative hypothesis would be Ha: µ < 70 inches.

A two-tailed hypothesis involves making an “equal to” or “not equal to” statement.

For example, suppose we assume the mean height of a male in the U.S. is equal to 70 inches. The null hypothesis would be H0: µ = 70 inches and the alternative hypothesis would be Ha: µ ≠ 70 inches.

Note: The “equal” sign is always included in the null hypothesis, whether it is =, ≥, or ≤.

Related:   What is a Directional Hypothesis?

Types of Hypothesis Tests

There are many different types of hypothesis tests you can perform depending on the type of data you’re working with and the goal of your analysis.

The following tutorials provide an explanation of the most common types of hypothesis tests:

Introduction to the One Sample t-test Introduction to the Two Sample t-test Introduction to the Paired Samples t-test Introduction to the One Proportion Z-Test Introduction to the Two Proportion Z-Test

Hey there. My name is Zach Bobbitt. I have a Master of Science degree in Applied Statistics and I’ve worked on machine learning algorithms for professional businesses in both healthcare and retail. I’m passionate about statistics, machine learning, and data visualization and I created Statology to be a resource for both students and teachers alike.  My goal with this site is to help you learn statistics through using simple terms, plenty of real-world examples, and helpful illustrations.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

• PMC5635437.1 ; 2015 Aug 25
• PMC5635437.2 ; 2016 Jul 13
• ➤ PMC5635437.3; 2016 Oct 10

Null hypothesis significance testing: a short tutorial

Cyril pernet.

1 Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences (CCBS), Neuroimaging Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Version Changes

Revised. amendments from version 2.

This v3 includes minor changes that reflect the 3rd reviewers' comments - in particular the theoretical vs. practical difference between Fisher and Neyman-Pearson. Additional information and reference is also included regarding the interpretation of p-value for low powered studies.

Peer Review Summary

Although thoroughly criticized, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) remains the statistical method of choice used to provide evidence for an effect, in biological, biomedical and social sciences. In this short tutorial, I first summarize the concepts behind the method, distinguishing test of significance (Fisher) and test of acceptance (Newman-Pearson) and point to common interpretation errors regarding the p-value. I then present the related concepts of confidence intervals and again point to common interpretation errors. Finally, I discuss what should be reported in which context. The goal is to clarify concepts to avoid interpretation errors and propose reporting practices.

The Null Hypothesis Significance Testing framework

NHST is a method of statistical inference by which an experimental factor is tested against a hypothesis of no effect or no relationship based on a given observation. The method is a combination of the concepts of significance testing developed by Fisher in 1925 and of acceptance based on critical rejection regions developed by Neyman & Pearson in 1928 . In the following I am first presenting each approach, highlighting the key differences and common misconceptions that result from their combination into the NHST framework (for a more mathematical comparison, along with the Bayesian method, see Christensen, 2005 ). I next present the related concept of confidence intervals. I finish by discussing practical aspects in using NHST and reporting practice.

Fisher, significance testing, and the p-value

The method developed by ( Fisher, 1934 ; Fisher, 1955 ; Fisher, 1959 ) allows to compute the probability of observing a result at least as extreme as a test statistic (e.g. t value), assuming the null hypothesis of no effect is true. This probability or p-value reflects (1) the conditional probability of achieving the observed outcome or larger: p(Obs≥t|H0), and (2) is therefore a cumulative probability rather than a point estimate. It is equal to the area under the null probability distribution curve from the observed test statistic to the tail of the null distribution ( Turkheimer et al. , 2004 ). The approach proposed is of ‘proof by contradiction’ ( Christensen, 2005 ), we pose the null model and test if data conform to it.

In practice, it is recommended to set a level of significance (a theoretical p-value) that acts as a reference point to identify significant results, that is to identify results that differ from the null-hypothesis of no effect. Fisher recommended using p=0.05 to judge whether an effect is significant or not as it is roughly two standard deviations away from the mean for the normal distribution ( Fisher, 1934 page 45: ‘The value for which p=.05, or 1 in 20, is 1.96 or nearly 2; it is convenient to take this point as a limit in judging whether a deviation is to be considered significant or not’). A key aspect of Fishers’ theory is that only the null-hypothesis is tested, and therefore p-values are meant to be used in a graded manner to decide whether the evidence is worth additional investigation and/or replication ( Fisher, 1971 page 13: ‘it is open to the experimenter to be more or less exacting in respect of the smallness of the probability he would require […]’ and ‘no isolated experiment, however significant in itself, can suffice for the experimental demonstration of any natural phenomenon’). How small the level of significance is, is thus left to researchers.

What is not a p-value? Common mistakes

The p-value is not an indication of the strength or magnitude of an effect . Any interpretation of the p-value in relation to the effect under study (strength, reliability, probability) is wrong, since p-values are conditioned on H0. In addition, while p-values are randomly distributed (if all the assumptions of the test are met) when there is no effect, their distribution depends of both the population effect size and the number of participants, making impossible to infer strength of effect from them.

Similarly, 1-p is not the probability to replicate an effect . Often, a small value of p is considered to mean a strong likelihood of getting the same results on another try, but again this cannot be obtained because the p-value is not informative on the effect itself ( Miller, 2009 ). Because the p-value depends on the number of subjects, it can only be used in high powered studies to interpret results. In low powered studies (typically small number of subjects), the p-value has a large variance across repeated samples, making it unreliable to estimate replication ( Halsey et al. , 2015 ).

A (small) p-value is not an indication favouring a given hypothesis . Because a low p-value only indicates a misfit of the null hypothesis to the data, it cannot be taken as evidence in favour of a specific alternative hypothesis more than any other possible alternatives such as measurement error and selection bias ( Gelman, 2013 ). Some authors have even argued that the more (a priori) implausible the alternative hypothesis, the greater the chance that a finding is a false alarm ( Krzywinski & Altman, 2013 ; Nuzzo, 2014 ).

The p-value is not the probability of the null hypothesis p(H0), of being true, ( Krzywinski & Altman, 2013 ). This common misconception arises from a confusion between the probability of an observation given the null p(Obs≥t|H0) and the probability of the null given an observation p(H0|Obs≥t) that is then taken as an indication for p(H0) (see Nickerson, 2000 ).

Neyman-Pearson, hypothesis testing, and the α-value

Neyman & Pearson (1933) proposed a framework of statistical inference for applied decision making and quality control. In such framework, two hypotheses are proposed: the null hypothesis of no effect and the alternative hypothesis of an effect, along with a control of the long run probabilities of making errors. The first key concept in this approach, is the establishment of an alternative hypothesis along with an a priori effect size. This differs markedly from Fisher who proposed a general approach for scientific inference conditioned on the null hypothesis only. The second key concept is the control of error rates . Neyman & Pearson (1928) introduced the notion of critical intervals, therefore dichotomizing the space of possible observations into correct vs. incorrect zones. This dichotomization allows distinguishing correct results (rejecting H0 when there is an effect and not rejecting H0 when there is no effect) from errors (rejecting H0 when there is no effect, the type I error, and not rejecting H0 when there is an effect, the type II error). In this context, alpha is the probability of committing a Type I error in the long run. Alternatively, Beta is the probability of committing a Type II error in the long run.

The (theoretical) difference in terms of hypothesis testing between Fisher and Neyman-Pearson is illustrated on Figure 1 . In the 1 st case, we choose a level of significance for observed data of 5%, and compute the p-value. If the p-value is below the level of significance, it is used to reject H0. In the 2 nd case, we set a critical interval based on the a priori effect size and error rates. If an observed statistic value is below and above the critical values (the bounds of the confidence region), it is deemed significantly different from H0. In the NHST framework, the level of significance is (in practice) assimilated to the alpha level, which appears as a simple decision rule: if the p-value is less or equal to alpha, the null is rejected. It is however a common mistake to assimilate these two concepts. The level of significance set for a given sample is not the same as the frequency of acceptance alpha found on repeated sampling because alpha (a point estimate) is meant to reflect the long run probability whilst the p-value (a cumulative estimate) reflects the current probability ( Fisher, 1955 ; Hubbard & Bayarri, 2003 ).

The figure was prepared with G-power for a one-sided one-sample t-test, with a sample size of 32 subjects, an effect size of 0.45, and error rates alpha=0.049 and beta=0.80. In Fisher’s procedure, only the nil-hypothesis is posed, and the observed p-value is compared to an a priori level of significance. If the observed p-value is below this level (here p=0.05), one rejects H0. In Neyman-Pearson’s procedure, the null and alternative hypotheses are specified along with an a priori level of acceptance. If the observed statistical value is outside the critical region (here [-∞ +1.69]), one rejects H0.

Acceptance or rejection of H0?

The acceptance level α can also be viewed as the maximum probability that a test statistic falls into the rejection region when the null hypothesis is true ( Johnson, 2013 ). Therefore, one can only reject the null hypothesis if the test statistics falls into the critical region(s), or fail to reject this hypothesis. In the latter case, all we can say is that no significant effect was observed, but one cannot conclude that the null hypothesis is true. This is another common mistake in using NHST: there is a profound difference between accepting the null hypothesis and simply failing to reject it ( Killeen, 2005 ). By failing to reject, we simply continue to assume that H0 is true, which implies that one cannot argue against a theory from a non-significant result (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). To accept the null hypothesis, tests of equivalence ( Walker & Nowacki, 2011 ) or Bayesian approaches ( Dienes, 2014 ; Kruschke, 2011 ) must be used.

Confidence intervals

Confidence intervals (CI) are builds that fail to cover the true value at a rate of alpha, the Type I error rate ( Morey & Rouder, 2011 ) and therefore indicate if observed values can be rejected by a (two tailed) test with a given alpha. CI have been advocated as alternatives to p-values because (i) they allow judging the statistical significance and (ii) provide estimates of effect size. Assuming the CI (a)symmetry and width are correct (but see Wilcox, 2012 ), they also give some indication about the likelihood that a similar value can be observed in future studies. For future studies of the same sample size, 95% CI give about 83% chance of replication success ( Cumming & Maillardet, 2006 ). If sample sizes however differ between studies, CI do not however warranty any a priori coverage.

Although CI provide more information, they are not less subject to interpretation errors (see Savalei & Dunn, 2015 for a review). The most common mistake is to interpret CI as the probability that a parameter (e.g. the population mean) will fall in that interval X% of the time. The correct interpretation is that, for repeated measurements with the same sample sizes, taken from the same population, X% of times the CI obtained will contain the true parameter value ( Tan & Tan, 2010 ). The alpha value has the same interpretation as testing against H0, i.e. we accept that 1-alpha CI are wrong in alpha percent of the times in the long run. This implies that CI do not allow to make strong statements about the parameter of interest (e.g. the mean difference) or about H1 ( Hoekstra et al. , 2014 ). To make a statement about the probability of a parameter of interest (e.g. the probability of the mean), Bayesian intervals must be used.

The (correct) use of NHST

NHST has always been criticized, and yet is still used every day in scientific reports ( Nickerson, 2000 ). One question to ask oneself is what is the goal of a scientific experiment at hand? If the goal is to establish a discrepancy with the null hypothesis and/or establish a pattern of order, because both requires ruling out equivalence, then NHST is a good tool ( Frick, 1996 ; Walker & Nowacki, 2011 ). If the goal is to test the presence of an effect and/or establish some quantitative values related to an effect, then NHST is not the method of choice since testing is conditioned on H0.

While a Bayesian analysis is suited to estimate that the probability that a hypothesis is correct, like NHST, it does not prove a theory on itself, but adds its plausibility ( Lindley, 2000 ). No matter what testing procedure is used and how strong results are, ( Fisher, 1959 p13) reminds us that ‘ […] no isolated experiment, however significant in itself, can suffice for the experimental demonstration of any natural phenomenon'. Similarly, the recent statement of the American Statistical Association ( Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016 ) makes it clear that conclusions should be based on the researchers understanding of the problem in context, along with all summary data and tests, and that no single value (being p-values, Bayesian factor or else) can be used support or invalidate a theory.

What to report and how?

Considering that quantitative reports will always have more information content than binary (significant or not) reports, we can always argue that raw and/or normalized effect size, confidence intervals, or Bayes factor must be reported. Reporting everything can however hinder the communication of the main result(s), and we should aim at giving only the information needed, at least in the core of a manuscript. Here I propose to adopt optimal reporting in the result section to keep the message clear, but have detailed supplementary material. When the hypothesis is about the presence/absence or order of an effect, and providing that a study has sufficient power, NHST is appropriate and it is sufficient to report in the text the actual p-value since it conveys the information needed to rule out equivalence. When the hypothesis and/or the discussion involve some quantitative value, and because p-values do not inform on the effect, it is essential to report on effect sizes ( Lakens, 2013 ), preferably accompanied with confidence or credible intervals. The reasoning is simply that one cannot predict and/or discuss quantities without accounting for variability. For the reader to understand and fully appreciate the results, nothing else is needed.

Because science progress is obtained by cumulating evidence ( Rosenthal, 1991 ), scientists should also consider the secondary use of the data. With today’s electronic articles, there are no reasons for not including all of derived data: mean, standard deviations, effect size, CI, Bayes factor should always be included as supplementary tables (or even better also share raw data). It is also essential to report the context in which tests were performed – that is to report all of the tests performed (all t, F, p values) because of the increase type one error rate due to selective reporting (multiple comparisons and p-hacking problems - Ioannidis, 2005 ). Providing all of this information allows (i) other researchers to directly and effectively compare their results in quantitative terms (replication of effects beyond significance, Open Science Collaboration, 2015 ), (ii) to compute power to future studies ( Lakens & Evers, 2014 ), and (iii) to aggregate results for meta-analyses whilst minimizing publication bias ( van Assen et al. , 2014 ).

[version 3; referees: 1 approved

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

• Christensen R: Testing Fisher, Neyman, Pearson, and Bayes. The American Statistician. 2005; 59 ( 2 ):121–126. 10.1198/000313005X20871 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cumming G, Maillardet R: Confidence intervals and replication: Where will the next mean fall? Psychological Methods. 2006; 11 ( 3 ):217–227. 10.1037/1082-989X.11.3.217 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dienes Z: Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Front Psychol. 2014; 5 :781. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher RA: Statistical Methods for Research Workers . (Vol. 5th Edition). Edinburgh, UK: Oliver and Boyd.1934. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher RA: Statistical Methods and Scientific Induction. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B. 1955; 17 ( 1 ):69–78. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher RA: Statistical methods and scientific inference . (2nd ed.). NewYork: Hafner Publishing,1959. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher RA: The Design of Experiments . Hafner Publishing Company, New-York.1971. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Frick RW: The appropriate use of null hypothesis testing. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1 ( 4 ):379–390. 10.1037/1082-989X.1.4.379 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelman A: P values and statistical practice. Epidemiology. 2013; 24 ( 1 ):69–72. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31827886f7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halsey LG, Curran-Everett D, Vowler SL, et al.: The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nat Methods. 2015; 12 ( 3 ):179–85. 10.1038/nmeth.3288 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoekstra R, Morey RD, Rouder JN, et al.: Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Psychon Bull Rev. 2014; 21 ( 5 ):1157–1164. 10.3758/s13423-013-0572-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hubbard R, Bayarri MJ: Confusion over measures of evidence (p’s) versus errors ([alpha]’s) in classical statistical testing. The American Statistician. 2003; 57 ( 3 ):171–182. 10.1198/0003130031856 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannidis JP: Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2 ( 8 ):e124. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson VE: Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110 ( 48 ):19313–19317. 10.1073/pnas.1313476110 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killeen PR: An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests. Psychol Sci. 2005; 16 ( 5 ):345–353. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01538.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruschke JK: Bayesian Assessment of Null Values Via Parameter Estimation and Model Comparison. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011; 6 ( 3 ):299–312. 10.1177/1745691611406925 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krzywinski M, Altman N: Points of significance: Significance, P values and t -tests. Nat Methods. 2013; 10 ( 11 ):1041–1042. 10.1038/nmeth.2698 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakens D: Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t -tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013; 4 :863. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakens D, Evers ER: Sailing From the Seas of Chaos Into the Corridor of Stability: Practical Recommendations to Increase the Informational Value of Studies. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014; 9 ( 3 ):278–292. 10.1177/1745691614528520 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindley D: The philosophy of statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 2000; 49 ( 3 ):293–337. 10.1111/1467-9884.00238 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller J: What is the probability of replicating a statistically significant effect? Psychon Bull Rev. 2009; 16 ( 4 ):617–640. 10.3758/PBR.16.4.617 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morey RD, Rouder JN: Bayes factor approaches for testing interval null hypotheses. Psychol Methods. 2011; 16 ( 4 ):406–419. 10.1037/a0024377 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neyman J, Pearson ES: On the Use and Interpretation of Certain Test Criteria for Purposes of Statistical Inference: Part I. Biometrika. 1928; 20A ( 1/2 ):175–240. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00245 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neyman J, Pearson ES: On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A. 1933; 231 ( 694–706 ):289–337. 10.1098/rsta.1933.0009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nickerson RS: Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol Methods. 2000; 5 ( 2 ):241–301. 10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.241 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuzzo R: Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature. 2014; 506 ( 7487 ):150–152. 10.1038/506150a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Open Science Collaboration. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349 ( 6251 ):aac4716. 10.1126/science.aac4716 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R: Cumulating psychology: an appreciation of Donald T. Campbell. Psychol Sci. 1991; 2 ( 4 ):213–221. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00138.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savalei V, Dunn E: Is the call to abandon p -values the red herring of the replicability crisis? Front Psychol. 2015; 6 :245. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00245 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan SH, Tan SB: The Correct Interpretation of Confidence Intervals. Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare. 2010; 19 ( 3 ):276–278. 10.1177/201010581001900316 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turkheimer FE, Aston JA, Cunningham VJ: On the logic of hypothesis testing in functional imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004; 31 ( 5 ):725–732. 10.1007/s00259-003-1387-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Assen MA, van Aert RC, Nuijten MB, et al.: Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results. PLoS One. 2014; 9 ( 1 ):e84896. 10.1371/journal.pone.0084896 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker E, Nowacki AS: Understanding equivalence and noninferiority testing. J Gen Intern Med. 2011; 26 ( 2 ):192–196. 10.1007/s11606-010-1513-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA: The ASA’s Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician. 2016; 70 ( 2 ):129–133. 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilcox R: Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing . Edition 3, Academic Press, Elsevier: Oxford, UK, ISBN: 978-0-12-386983-8.2012. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]

Referee response for version 3

Dorothy vera margaret bishop.

1 Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

I can see from the history of this paper that the author has already been very responsive to reviewer comments, and that the process of revising has now been quite protracted.

That makes me reluctant to suggest much more, but I do see potential here for making the paper more impactful. So my overall view is that, once a few typos are fixed (see below), this could be published as is, but I think there is an issue with the potential readership and that further revision could overcome this.

I suspect my take on this is rather different from other reviewers, as I do not regard myself as a statistics expert, though I am on the more quantitative end of the continuum of psychologists and I try to keep up to date. I think I am quite close to the target readership , insofar as I am someone who was taught about statistics ages ago and uses stats a lot, but never got adequate training in the kinds of topic covered by this paper. The fact that I am aware of controversies around the interpretation of confidence intervals etc is simply because I follow some discussions of this on social media. I am therefore very interested to have a clear account of these issues.

This paper contains helpful information for someone in this position, but it is not always clear, and I felt the relevance of some of the content was uncertain. So here are some recommendations:

• As one previous reviewer noted, it’s questionable that there is a need for a tutorial introduction, and the limited length of this article does not lend itself to a full explanation. So it might be better to just focus on explaining as clearly as possible the problems people have had in interpreting key concepts. I think a title that made it clear this was the content would be more appealing than the current one.
• P 3, col 1, para 3, last sentence. Although statisticians always emphasise the arbitrary nature of p < .05, we all know that in practice authors who use other values are likely to have their analyses queried. I wondered whether it would be useful here to note that in some disciplines different cutoffs are traditional, e.g. particle physics. Or you could cite David Colquhoun’s paper in which he recommends using p < .001 ( http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/140216) - just to be clear that the traditional p < .05 has been challenged.

What I can’t work out is how you would explain the alpha from Neyman-Pearson in the same way (though I can see from Figure 1 that with N-P you could test an alternative hypothesis, such as the idea that the coin would be heads 75% of the time).

‘By failing to reject, we simply continue to assume that H0 is true, which implies that one cannot….’ have ‘In failing to reject, we do not assume that H0 is true; one cannot argue against a theory from a non-significant result.’

I felt most readers would be interested to read about tests of equivalence and Bayesian approaches, but many would be unfamiliar with these and might like to see an example of how they work in practice – if space permitted.

• Confidence intervals: I simply could not understand the first sentence – I wondered what was meant by ‘builds’ here. I understand about difficulties in comparing CI across studies when sample sizes differ, but I did not find the last sentence on p 4 easy to understand.
• P 5: The sentence starting: ‘The alpha value has the same interpretation’ was also hard to understand, especially the term ‘1-alpha CI’. Here too I felt some concrete illustration might be helpful to the reader. And again, I also found the reference to Bayesian intervals tantalising – I think many readers won’t know how to compute these and something like a figure comparing a traditional CI with a Bayesian interval and giving a source for those who want to read on would be very helpful. The reference to ‘credible intervals’ in the penultimate paragraph is very unclear and needs a supporting reference – most readers will not be familiar with this concept.

P 3, col 1, para 2, line 2; “allows us to compute”

P 3, col 2, para 2, ‘probability of replicating’

P 3, col 2, para 2, line 4 ‘informative about’

P 3, col 2, para 4, line 2 delete ‘of’

P 3, col 2, para 5, line 9 – ‘conditioned’ is either wrong or too technical here: would ‘based’ be acceptable as alternative wording

P 3, col 2, para 5, line 13 ‘This dichotomisation allows one to distinguish’

P 3, col 2, para 5, last sentence, delete ‘Alternatively’.

P 3, col 2, last para line 2 ‘first’

P 4, col 2, para 2, last sentence is hard to understand; not sure if this is better: ‘If sample sizes differ between studies, the distribution of CIs cannot be specified a priori’

P 5, col 1, para 2, ‘a pattern of order’ – I did not understand what was meant by this

P 5, col 1, para 2, last sentence unclear: possible rewording: “If the goal is to test the size of an effect then NHST is not the method of choice, since testing can only reject the null hypothesis.’ (??)

P 5, col 1, para 3, line 1 delete ‘that’

P 5, col 1, para 3, line 3 ‘on’ -> ‘by’

P 5, col 2, para 1, line 4 , rather than ‘Here I propose to adopt’ I suggest ‘I recommend adopting’

P 5, col 2, para 1, line 13 ‘with’ -> ‘by’

P 5, col 2, para 1 – recommend deleting last sentence

P 5, col 2, para 2, line 2 ‘consider’ -> ‘anticipate’

P 5, col 2, para 2, delete ‘should always be included’

P 5, col 2, para 2, ‘type one’ -> ‘Type I’

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

The University of Edinburgh, UK

I wondered about changing the focus slightly and modifying the title to reflect this to say something like: Null hypothesis significance testing: a guide to commonly misunderstood concepts and recommendations for good practice

Thank you for the suggestion – you indeed saw the intention behind the ‘tutorial’ style of the paper.

• P 3, col 1, para 3, last sentence. Although statisticians always emphasise the arbitrary nature of p < .05, we all know that in practice authors who use other values are likely to have their analyses queried. I wondered whether it would be useful here to note that in some disciplines different cutoffs are traditional, e.g. particle physics. Or you could cite David Colquhoun’s paper in which he recommends using p < .001 ( http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/140216)  - just to be clear that the traditional p < .05 has been challenged.

I have added a sentence on this citing Colquhoun 2014 and the new Benjamin 2017 on using .005.

I agree that this point is always hard to appreciate, especially because it seems like in practice it makes little difference. I added a paragraph but using reaction times rather than a coin toss – thanks for the suggestion.

Added an example based on new table 1, following figure 1 – giving CI, equivalence tests and Bayes Factor (with refs to easy to use tools)

Changed builds to constructs (this simply means they are something we build) and added that the implication that probability coverage is not warranty when sample size change, is that we cannot compare CI.

I changed ‘ i.e. we accept that 1-alpha CI are wrong in alpha percent of the times in the long run’ to ‘, ‘e.g. a 95% CI is wrong in 5% of the times in the long run (i.e. if we repeat the experiment many times).’ – for Bayesian intervals I simply re-cited Morey & Rouder, 2011.

It is not the CI cannot be specified, it’s that the interval is not predictive of anything anymore! I changed it to ‘If sample sizes, however, differ between studies, there is no warranty that a CI from one study will be true at the rate alpha in a different study, which implies that CI cannot be compared across studies at this is rarely the same sample sizes’

I added (i.e. establish that A > B) – we test that conditions are ordered, but without further specification of the probability of that effect nor its size

Yes it works – thx

P 5, col 2, para 2, ‘type one’ -> ‘Type I’ 

Typos fixed, and suggestions accepted – thanks for that.

Stephen J. Senn

1 Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, L-1445, Luxembourg

The revisions are OK for me, and I have changed my status to Approved.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Referee response for version 2

On the whole I think that this article is reasonable, my main reservation being that I have my doubts on whether the literature needs yet another tutorial on this subject.

A further reservation I have is that the author, following others, stresses what in my mind is a relatively unimportant distinction between the Fisherian and Neyman-Pearson (NP) approaches. The distinction stressed by many is that the NP approach leads to a dichotomy accept/reject based on probabilities established in advance, whereas the Fisherian approach uses tail area probabilities calculated from the observed statistic. I see this as being unimportant and not even true. Unless one considers that the person carrying out a hypothesis test (original tester) is mandated to come to a conclusion on behalf of all scientific posterity, then one must accept that any remote scientist can come to his or her conclusion depending on the personal type I error favoured. To operate the results of an NP test carried out by the original tester, the remote scientist then needs to know the p-value. The type I error rate is then compared to this to come to a personal accept or reject decision (1). In fact Lehmann (2), who was an important developer of and proponent of the NP system, describes exactly this approach as being good practice. (See Testing Statistical Hypotheses, 2nd edition P70). Thus using tail-area probabilities calculated from the observed statistics does not constitute an operational difference between the two systems.

A more important distinction between the Fisherian and NP systems is that the former does not use alternative hypotheses(3). Fisher's opinion was that the null hypothesis was more primitive than the test statistic but that the test statistic was more primitive than the alternative hypothesis. Thus, alternative hypotheses could not be used to justify choice of test statistic. Only experience could do that.

Further distinctions between the NP and Fisherian approach are to do with conditioning and whether a null hypothesis can ever be accepted.

I have one minor quibble about terminology. As far as I can see, the author uses the usual term 'null hypothesis' and the eccentric term 'nil hypothesis' interchangeably. It would be simpler if the latter were abandoned.

Referee response for version 1

Marcel alm van assen.

1 Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburgh University, Tilburg, Netherlands

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is a difficult topic, with misunderstandings arising easily. Many texts, including basic statistics books, deal with the topic, and attempt to explain it to students and anyone else interested. I would refer to a good basic text book, for a detailed explanation of NHST, or to a specialized article when wishing an explaining the background of NHST. So, what is the added value of a new text on NHST? In any case, the added value should be described at the start of this text. Moreover, the topic is so delicate and difficult that errors, misinterpretations, and disagreements are easy. I attempted to show this by giving comments to many sentences in the text.

Abstract: “null hypothesis significance testing is the statistical method of choice in biological, biomedical and social sciences to investigate if an effect is likely”. No, NHST is the method to test the hypothesis of no effect.

Intro: “Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is a method of statistical inference by which an observation is tested against a hypothesis of no effect or no relationship.” What is an ‘observation’? NHST is difficult to describe in one sentence, particularly here. I would skip this sentence entirely, here.

Section on Fisher; also explain the one-tailed test.

Section on Fisher; p(Obs|H0) does not reflect the verbal definition (the ‘or more extreme’ part).

Section on Fisher; use a reference and citation to Fisher’s interpretation of the p-value

Section on Fisher; “This was however only intended to be used as an indication that there is something in the data that deserves further investigation. The reason for this is that only H0 is tested whilst the effect under study is not itself being investigated.” First sentence, can you give a reference? Many people say a lot about Fisher’s intentions, but the good man is dead and cannot reply… Second sentence is a bit awkward, because the effect is investigated in a way, by testing the H0.

Section on p-value; Layout and structure can be improved greatly, by first again stating what the p-value is, and then statement by statement, what it is not, using separate lines for each statement. Consider adding that the p-value is randomly distributed under H0 (if all the assumptions of the test are met), and that under H1 the p-value is a function of population effect size and N; the larger each is, the smaller the p-value generally is.

Skip the sentence “If there is no effect, we should replicate the absence of effect with a probability equal to 1-p”. Not insightful, and you did not discuss the concept ‘replicate’ (and do not need to).

Skip the sentence “The total probability of false positives can also be obtained by aggregating results ( Ioannidis, 2005 ).” Not strongly related to p-values, and introduces unnecessary concepts ‘false positives’ (perhaps later useful) and ‘aggregation’.

Consider deleting; “If there is an effect however, the probability to replicate is a function of the (unknown) population effect size with no good way to know this from a single experiment ( Killeen, 2005 ).”

The following sentence; “ Finally, a (small) p-value  is not an indication favouring a hypothesis . A low p-value indicates a misfit of the null hypothesis to the data and cannot be taken as evidence in favour of a specific alternative hypothesis more than any other possible alternatives such as measurement error and selection bias ( Gelman, 2013 ).” is surely not mainstream thinking about NHST; I would surely delete that sentence. In NHST, a p-value is used for testing the H0. Why did you not yet discuss significance level? Yes, before discussing what is not a p-value, I would explain NHST (i.e., what it is and how it is used). 

Also the next sentence “The more (a priori) implausible the alternative hypothesis, the greater the chance that a finding is a false alarm ( Krzywinski & Altman, 2013 ;  Nuzzo, 2014 ).“ is not fully clear to me. This is a Bayesian statement. In NHST, no likelihoods are attributed to hypotheses; the reasoning is “IF H0 is true, then…”.

Last sentence: “As  Nickerson (2000)  puts it ‘theory corroboration requires the testing of multiple predictions because the chance of getting statistically significant results for the wrong reasons in any given case is high’.” What is relation of this sentence to the contents of this section, precisely?

Next section: “For instance, we can estimate that the probability of a given F value to be in the critical interval [+2 +∞] is less than 5%” This depends on the degrees of freedom.

“When there is no effect (H0 is true), the erroneous rejection of H0 is known as type I error and is equal to the p-value.” Strange sentence. The Type I error is the probability of erroneously rejecting the H0 (so, when it is true). The p-value is … well, you explained it before; it surely does not equal the Type I error.

Consider adding a figure explaining the distinction between Fisher’s logic and that of Neyman and Pearson.

“When the test statistics falls outside the critical region(s)” What is outside?

“There is a profound difference between accepting the null hypothesis and simply failing to reject it ( Killeen, 2005 )” I agree with you, but perhaps you may add that some statisticians simply define “accept H0’” as obtaining a p-value larger than the significance level. Did you already discuss the significance level, and it’s mostly used values?

“To accept or reject equally the null hypothesis, Bayesian approaches ( Dienes, 2014 ;  Kruschke, 2011 ) or confidence intervals must be used.” Is ‘reject equally’ appropriate English? Also using Cis, one cannot accept the H0.

Do you start discussing alpha only in the context of Cis?

“CI also indicates the precision of the estimate of effect size, but unless using a percentile bootstrap approach, they require assumptions about distributions which can lead to serious biases in particular regarding the symmetry and width of the intervals ( Wilcox, 2012 ).” Too difficult, using new concepts. Consider deleting.

“Assuming the CI (a)symmetry and width are correct, this gives some indication about the likelihood that a similar value can be observed in future studies, with 95% CI giving about 83% chance of replication success ( Lakens & Evers, 2014 ).” This statement is, in general, completely false. It very much depends on the sample sizes of both studies. If the replication study has a much, much, much larger N, then the probability that the original CI will contain the effect size of the replication approaches (1-alpha)*100%. If the original study has a much, much, much larger N, then the probability that the original Ci will contain the effect size of the replication study approaches 0%.

“Finally, contrary to p-values, CI can be used to accept H0. Typically, if a CI includes 0, we cannot reject H0. If a critical null region is specified rather than a single point estimate, for instance [-2 +2] and the CI is included within the critical null region, then H0 can be accepted. Importantly, the critical region must be specified a priori and cannot be determined from the data themselves.” No. H0 cannot be accepted with Cis.

“The (posterior) probability of an effect can however not be obtained using a frequentist framework.” Frequentist framework? You did not discuss that, yet.

“X% of times the CI obtained will contain the same parameter value”. The same? True, you mean?

“e.g. X% of the times the CI contains the same mean” I do not understand; which mean?

“The alpha value has the same interpretation as when using H0, i.e. we accept that 1-alpha CI are wrong in alpha percent of the times. “ What do you mean, CI are wrong? Consider rephrasing.

“To make a statement about the probability of a parameter of interest, likelihood intervals (maximum likelihood) and credibility intervals (Bayes) are better suited.” ML gives the likelihood of the data given the parameter, not the other way around.

“Many of the disagreements are not on the method itself but on its use.” Bayesians may disagree.

“If the goal is to establish the likelihood of an effect and/or establish a pattern of order, because both requires ruling out equivalence, then NHST is a good tool ( Frick, 1996 )” NHST does not provide evidence on the likelihood of an effect.

“If the goal is to establish some quantitative values, then NHST is not the method of choice.” P-values are also quantitative… this is not a precise sentence. And NHST may be used in combination with effect size estimation (this is even recommended by, e.g., the American Psychological Association (APA)).

“Because results are conditioned on H0, NHST cannot be used to establish beliefs.” It can reinforce some beliefs, e.g., if H0 or any other hypothesis, is true.

“To estimate the probability of a hypothesis, a Bayesian analysis is a better alternative.” It is the only alternative?

“Note however that even when a specific quantitative prediction from a hypothesis is shown to be true (typically testing H1 using Bayes), it does not prove the hypothesis itself, it only adds to its plausibility.” How can we show something is true?

I do not agree on the contents of the last section on ‘minimal reporting’. I prefer ‘optimal reporting’ instead, i.e., the reporting the information that is essential to the interpretation of the result, to any ready, which may have other goals than the writer of the article. This reporting includes, for sure, an estimate of effect size, and preferably a confidence interval, which is in line with recommendations of the APA.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

The idea of this short review was to point to common interpretation errors (stressing again and again that we are under H0) being in using p-values or CI, and also proposing reporting practices to avoid bias. This is now stated at the end of abstract.

Regarding text books, it is clear that many fail to clearly distinguish Fisher/Pearson/NHST, see Glinet et al (2012) J. Exp Education 71, 83-92. If you have 1 or 2 in mind that you know to be good, I’m happy to include them.

I agree – yet people use it to investigate (not test) if an effect is likely. The issue here is wording. What about adding this distinction at the end of the sentence?: ‘null hypothesis significance testing is the statistical method of choice in biological, biomedical and social sciences used to investigate if an effect is likely, even though it actually tests for the hypothesis of no effect’.

I think a definition is needed, as it offers a starting point. What about the following: ‘NHST is a method of statistical inference by which an experimental factor is tested against a hypothesis of no effect or no relationship based on a given observation’

The section on Fisher has been modified (more or less) as suggested: (1) avoiding talking about one or two tailed tests (2) updating for p(Obs≥t|H0) and (3) referring to Fisher more explicitly (ie pages from articles and book) ; I cannot tell his intentions but these quotes leave little space to alternative interpretations.

The reasoning here is as you state yourself, part 1: ‘a p-value is used for testing the H0; and part 2: ‘no likelihoods are attributed to hypotheses’ it follows we cannot favour a hypothesis. It might seems contentious but this is the case that all we can is to reject the null – how could we favour a specific alternative hypothesis from there? This is explored further down the manuscript (and I now point to that) – note that we do not need to be Bayesian to favour a specific H1, all I’m saying is this cannot be attained with a p-value.

The point was to emphasise that a p value is not there to tell us a given H1 is true and can only be achieved through multiple predictions and experiments. I deleted it for clarity.

This sentence has been removed

Indeed, you are right and I have modified the text accordingly. When there is no effect (H0 is true), the erroneous rejection of H0 is known as type 1 error. Importantly, the type 1 error rate, or alpha value is determined a priori. It is a common mistake but the level of significance (for a given sample) is not the same as the frequency of acceptance alpha found on repeated sampling (Fisher, 1955).

A figure is now presented – with levels of acceptance, critical region, level of significance and p-value.

I should have clarified further here – as I was having in mind tests of equivalence. To clarify, I simply states now: ‘To accept the null hypothesis, tests of equivalence or Bayesian approaches must be used.’

It is now presented in the paragraph before.

Yes, you are right, I completely overlooked this problem. The corrected sentence (with more accurate ref) is now “Assuming the CI (a)symmetry and width are correct, this gives some indication about the likelihood that a similar value can be observed in future studies. For future studies of the same sample size, 95% CI giving about 83% chance of replication success (Cumming and Mallardet, 2006). If sample sizes differ between studies, CI do not however warranty any a priori coverage”.

Again, I had in mind equivalence testing, but in both cases you are right we can only reject and I therefore removed that sentence.

Yes, p-values must be interpreted in context with effect size, but this is not what people do. The point here is to be pragmatic, does and don’t. The sentence was changed.

Not for testing, but for probability, I am not aware of anything else.

Cumulative evidence is, in my opinion, the only way to show it. Even in hard science like physics multiple experiments. In the recent CERN study on finding Higgs bosons, 2 different and complementary experiments ran in parallel – and the cumulative evidence was taken as a proof of the true existence of Higgs bosons.

Daniel Lakens

1 School of Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands

I appreciate the author's attempt to write a short tutorial on NHST. Many people don't know how to use it, so attempts to educate people are always worthwhile. However, I don't think the current article reaches it's aim. For one, I think it might be practically impossible to explain a lot in such an ultra short paper - every section would require more than 2 pages to explain, and there are many sections. Furthermore, there are some excellent overviews, which, although more extensive, are also much clearer (e.g., Nickerson, 2000 ). Finally, I found many statements to be unclear, and perhaps even incorrect (noted below). Because there is nothing worse than creating more confusion on such a topic, I have extremely high standards before I think such a short primer should be indexed. I note some examples of unclear or incorrect statements below. I'm sorry I can't make a more positive recommendation.

“investigate if an effect is likely” – ambiguous statement. I think you mean, whether the observed DATA is probable, assuming there is no effect?

The Fisher (1959) reference is not correct – Fischer developed his method much earlier.

“This p-value thus reflects the conditional probability of achieving the observed outcome or larger, p(Obs|H0)” – please add 'assuming the null-hypothesis is true'.

“p(Obs|H0)” – explain this notation for novices.

“Following Fisher, the smaller the p-value, the greater the likelihood that the null hypothesis is false.”  This is wrong, and any statement about this needs to be much more precise. I would suggest direct quotes.

“there is something in the data that deserves further investigation” –unclear sentence.

“The reason for this” – unclear what ‘this’ refers to.

“ not the probability of the null hypothesis of being true, p(H0)” – second of can be removed?

“Any interpretation of the p-value in relation to the effect under study (strength, reliability, probability) is indeed

wrong, since the p-value is conditioned on H0”  - incorrect. A big problem is that it depends on the sample size, and that the probability of a theory depends on the prior.

“If there is no effect, we should replicate the absence of effect with a probability equal to 1-p.” I don’t understand this, but I think it is incorrect.

“The total probability of false positives can also be obtained by aggregating results (Ioannidis, 2005).” Unclear, and probably incorrect.

“By failing to reject, we simply continue to assume that H0 is true, which implies that one cannot, from a nonsignificant result, argue against a theory” – according to which theory? From a NP perspective, you can ACT as if the theory is false.

“(Lakens & Evers, 2014”) – we are not the original source, which should be cited instead.

“ Typically, if a CI includes 0, we cannot reject H0.”  - when would this not be the case? This assumes a CI of 1-alpha.

“If a critical null region is specified rather than a single point estimate, for instance [-2 +2] and the CI is included within the critical null region, then H0 can be accepted.” – you mean practically, or formally? I’m pretty sure only the former.

The section on ‘The (correct) use of NHST’ seems to conclude only Bayesian statistics should be used. I don’t really agree.

“ we can always argue that effect size, power, etc. must be reported.” – which power? Post-hoc power? Surely not? Other types are unknown. So what do you mean?

The recommendation on what to report remains vague, and it is unclear why what should be reported.

This sentence was changed, following as well the other reviewer, to ‘null hypothesis significance testing is the statistical method of choice in biological, biomedical and social sciences to investigate if an effect is likely, even though it actually tests whether the observed data are probable, assuming there is no effect’

Changed, refers to Fisher 1925

I changed a little the sentence structure, which should make explicit that this is the condition probability.

This has been changed to ‘[…] to decide whether the evidence is worth additional investigation and/or replication (Fisher, 1971 p13)’

my mistake – the sentence structure is now ‘ not the probability of the null hypothesis p(H0), of being true,’ ; hope this makes more sense (and this way refers back to p(Obs>t|H0)

Fair enough – my point was to stress the fact that p value and effect size or H1 have very little in common, but yes that the part in common has to do with sample size. I left the conditioning on H0 but also point out the dependency on sample size.

The whole paragraph was changed to reflect a more philosophical take on scientific induction/reasoning. I hope this is clearer.

Changed to refer to equivalence testing

I rewrote this, as to show frequentist analysis can be used  - I’m trying to sell Bayes more than any other approach.

I’m arguing we should report it all, that’s why there is no exhausting list – I can if needed.

• School Guide
• Mathematics
• Number System and Arithmetic
• Trigonometry
• Probability
• Mensuration
• Maths Formulas
• Class 8 Maths Notes
• Class 9 Maths Notes
• Class 10 Maths Notes
• Class 11 Maths Notes
• Class 12 Maths Notes

Tests of Significance: Process, Example and Type

• Level of Significance-Definition, Steps and Examples
• Significance Test for Linear Regression in R
• The Significance of Non-functional Testing in Software Projects
• Significance Test for Kendall's Tau-b in R
• Type I and Type II Errors
• How to Calculate Statistical Significance?
• How to Interpret Significance Codes in R?
• file command in Linux with examples
• SciPy - Statistical Significance Tests
• T-Test in Statistics: Formula, Types and Steps
• Difference Between One-Tailed and Two-Tailed Tests
• How to Perform Scheffe's Test in Excel?
• Types of testing in SAP
• Types of Database Testing & Tools
• General Steps of Software Testing Process
• Types of Regression Testing in Software Testing
• type command in Linux with Examples
• How to Write a Research Hypothesis- Step-By-Step Guide With Examples
• P-Value: Comprehensive Guide to Understand, Apply, and Interpret
• What are Numbers?
• Propositional Logic
• Pigeonhole Principle
• L U Decomposition
• Set Theory - Definition, Types of Sets, Symbols & Examples
• Predicates and Quantifiers
• Binary to Decimal Converter
• Number System in Maths
• Puzzle 26 | (Know Average Salary without Disclosing Individual Salaries)

Test of significance is a process for comparing observed data with a claim(also called a hypothesis), the truth of which is being assessed in further analysis. Let’s learn about test of significance, null hypothesis and Significance testing below.

Tests of Significance in Statistics

In technical terms, it is a probability measurement of a certain statistical test or research in the theory making in a way that the outcome must have occurred by chance instead of the test or experiment being right. The ultimate goal of descriptive statistical research is the revelation of the truth In doing so, the researcher has to make sure that the sample is of good quality, the error is minimal, and the measures are precise. These things are to be completed through several stages. The researcher will need to know whether the experimental outcomes are from a proper study process or just due to chance.

The sample size is the one that primarily specifies the probability that the event could occur without the effect of really performed research. It may be weak or strong depending on a certain statistical significance. Its bearings are put into question. They may or may not make a difference. The presence of a careless researcher can be a start of when a researcher instead of carefully making use of language in the report of his experiment, the significance of the study might be misinterpreted.

Significance Testing

Statistics involves the issue of assessing whether a result obtained from an experiment is important enough or not. In the field of quantitative significance, there are defined tests that may have relevant uses. The designation of tests depends on the type of tests or the tests of significance are more known as the simple significance tests.

These stand up for certain levels of error mislead. Sometimes the trial designer is called upon to predefine the probability of sampling error in the initial stage of the experiment. The population sampling test is regarded as one which does not study the whole, and as such the sampling error always exists. The testing of the significance is an equally important part of the statistical research.

Null Hypothesis

Every test for significance starts with a null hypothesis H 0 . H 0 represents a theory that has been suggested, either because it’s believed to be true or because it’s to be used as a basis for argument, but has not been proved. For example, during a clinical test of a replacement drug, the null hypothesis could be that the new drug is not any better, on average than the present drug. We would write H 0 : there’s no difference between the 2 drugs on average.

Process of Significance Testing

In the process of testing for statistical significance, the following steps must be taken:

Step 1: Start by coming up with a research idea or question for your thesis. Step 2: Create a neutral comparison to test against your hypothesis. Step 3: Decide on the level of certainty you need for your results, which affects the type of sign language translators and communication methods you’ll use. Step 4: Choose the appropriate statistical test to analyze your data accurately. Step 5: Understand and explain what your results mean in the context of your research question.

Types of Errors

There are basically two types of errors:

Type I Error

Type ii error.

Now let’s learn about these errors in detail.

A type I error is where the researcher finds out that the relationship presumed maxim is a case; however, there is evidence showing it is not a function explained. This type of error leads to a failure of the researcher who says that the H 0 or null hypothesis has to be accepted while in reality, it was supposed to be rejected together with the research hypothesis. Researchers commit an error in the first type when α (alpha) is their probability.

Type II error is the same as the type I error is the case. You begin to suppress your emotions and avoid experiencing any connection when someone thinks that you have no relation even though there does exist among you. In this sort of error, the researcher is expected to see the research hypothesis as true and treat the null hypotheses as false while he may do not and the opposite situation happens. Type II error is identified with β that equals to the possibility to make a type II error which is an error of omission.

Statistical Tests

One-tailed and two-tailed statistical tests help determine how significant a finding is in a set of data.

When we think that a parameter might change in one specific direction from a baseline, we use a one-tailed test. For example, if we’re testing whether a new drug makes people perform better, we might only care if it improves performance, not if it makes it worse.

On the flip side, a two-tailed test comes into play when changes could go in either direction from the baseline. For instance, if we’re studying the effect of a new teaching method on test scores, we’d want to know if it makes scores better or worse, so we’d use a two-tailed test.

Types of Statistical Tests

Hypothesis testing can be done via use of either one-tailed or two-tailed statistical test. The purpose of these tests is to obtain the probability with which a parameter from a given data set is statistically significant. These are also called lateral flow and dipstick tests.

• One-tailed test can be used so that the differences of the parameter estimations within only one side from a given standard can be perceived plausible.
• Two-tailed test needs to be applied in the case when you consider deviations from both sides of benchmark value as possible in science.

The expression “tail” is used in the terminology in which those tests are referred and the reason for that is that outliers, i.e. observation ended up rejecting the null hypothesis, are the extreme points of the distribution, those areas normally have a small influence or “tail off” similar to the bell shape or normal distribution. One study should make an application either the one-tailed test or two-tailed test according to the judgment of the research hypothesis.

What is p-Value Testing?

In the case of data information significance, the p-value is an additional and significant term for hypothesis testing. The p-value is a function whose domain is the observed result of sample and range is testing subset of statistical hypothesis which is being used for testing of statistical hypothesis. It must determine what the threshold value is before starting of the test. The significance level holds the name, traditional 1% or 5%, which stands for the level of the significance considered to be of value. One of the parameters of the Savings function is α.

In the condition if the p-value is greater than or equal the α term, inconsistency between our null model and the data exists. As a result the null hypothesis should be rejected and a new hypothesis may be supposed being true, or may be assumed as such one.

Example on Test of Significance

Some examples of test of significance are added below:

Example 1: T-Test for Medical Research – The T Test

For example, a medical study researching the performance of a new drug that comes to the conclusion of a reduced in blood pressure. The researchers predict that the patients taking the new drug will show a frankly larger decrease in blood pressure as opposed to the study participants on a placebo. They collect data from two groups: treat one group with an experimental drug and give all the placebo to the second group.

Researchers apply a t-test to the data in order determine the value of two assumed normal populations difference and study whether it statistically significant. The H0 (null hypothesis) could state that there is no significant difference in the blood pressure registered in the two groups of subjects, while the HA1 (alternative hypothesis) should be indicating the positivity of a significant difference. They can check whether or not the outcomes are significantly different by using the t-test, and therefore reduce the possibility of any confusing hypotheses.

Example 2: Chi-Square Analysis in Market Research

Think about the situation where you have to carry out a market research work to ascertain the link between customers satisfaction (comprised of satisfied satisfied or neutral scores) and their product preferences (the three products designated as Product A, Product B, and Product C). A chi-square test was used by the researchers to check whether they had a substantial association with the two categorical variables they were dealing with.

The H0 null hypothesis states customer satisfaction and product preferences are unrelated, the contrary to which H1 alternative hypothesis shows the customers’ satisfaction and product preferences are related. Thereby, the researchers will be able to execute the chi-square test on the gathered data and find out if the existed observations among customer satisfaction and product preferences are statistically significant by doing so. This allows us to make conclusions how the satisfaction degree of customers affects the market conception of goods for the target market.

Example 3: ANOVA in Educational Research

Think of a researcher whom is studying if there is any difference between various learning ways and their effect on students’ study achievements. HO represents the null hypothesis which asserts no differences in scores for the groups while the alternative hypothesis (HA) claims at least one group has a different mean. Via use Analysis of Variance ( ANOVA ), a researcher determines whether or not there is any statistically significant difference in performance hence, across the methods of teaching.

Example 4: Regression Analysis in Economics

In an economic study, researchers examine the connection between ads cost and revenue for the group of businesses that have recently disclosed their financial results. The null space proposes that there is no such linear connection between the advertisement spending and purchases.

Among the models, the regression analysis used to determine whether the changes in sales are attributed to the changes in advertising to a statistically significant level (the regression line slope is significantly different from zero) is chosen.

Example 5: Paired T-Test in Psychology

A psychologist decides to do a study to find out if a new type of therapy can make someone get rid of anxiety. Patients are evaluated of their level of anxiety prior to initiating the intervention and right after.

The null hypothesis claims that there is no noticeable difference in the levels of anxiety from a pre-intervention to a post-intervention setting. Using a paired t-test, a psychologist who collected the anxiety scores of a group before and after the experiment can prove statistically the observed change in these scores.

Test of Significance – FAQs

What is test of significance.

Test of significance is a process for comparing observed data with a claim(also called a hypothesis), the truth of which is being assessed in further analysis.

Define Statistical Significance Test?

Random distribution of observed data implies that there must be a certain cause behind which could then be associated with the data. This outcome is also referred to as the statistical significance. Whatever the explicit field or the profession that rely utterly on numbers and research, like finance, economics, investing, medicine, and biology, statistic is important.

What is the meaning of a test of significance?

Statistical significant tests work in order to determine if the differences found in assessment data is just due to random errors arising from sampling or not. This is a “silent” category of research that ought to be overlooked for it brings on mere incompatibilities.

What is the importance of the Significance test?

In experiments, the significance tests indeed have specific applied value. That is because they help researchers to draw conclusion whether the data supports or not the null hypothesis, and therefore whether the alternative hypothesis is true or not.

How many types of Significance tests are there in statistical mathematics?

In statistics, we have tests like t-test, aZ-test, chi-square test, annoVA test, binomial test, mediana test and others. Greatly decentralized data can be tested with parametric tests.

How does choosing a significance level (α) influence the interpretation of the attributable tests?

The parameter α which stands for the significance level is a function of this threshold, and to fail this test null hypothesis value has to be rejected. Hence, a smaller α value means higher strictness of acceptance threshold and false positives are limited while there could be an increase in false negatives.

Is significance testing limited to parametric methods like comparison of two means or, it can be applied to non-parametric datasets also?

Inference is something useful which can be miscellaneous and can adapt to parametric or non-parametric data. Non-parametric tests, for instance the Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, are often applied in operations research, since they do not require that data meet the assumptions of parametric tests.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Math-Statistics
• School Learning

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

User Preferences

Content preview.

Arcu felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis:

• Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
• Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
• Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident

Keyboard Shortcuts

S.3.2 hypothesis testing (p-value approach).

The P -value approach involves determining "likely" or "unlikely" by determining the probability — assuming the null hypothesis was true — of observing a more extreme test statistic in the direction of the alternative hypothesis than the one observed. If the P -value is small, say less than (or equal to) \(\alpha\), then it is "unlikely." And, if the P -value is large, say more than \(\alpha\), then it is "likely."

If the P -value is less than (or equal to) \(\alpha\), then the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. And, if the P -value is greater than \(\alpha\), then the null hypothesis is not rejected.

Specifically, the four steps involved in using the P -value approach to conducting any hypothesis test are:

• Specify the null and alternative hypotheses.
• Using the sample data and assuming the null hypothesis is true, calculate the value of the test statistic. Again, to conduct the hypothesis test for the population mean μ , we use the t -statistic \(t^*=\frac{\bar{x}-\mu}{s/\sqrt{n}}\) which follows a t -distribution with n - 1 degrees of freedom.
• Using the known distribution of the test statistic, calculate the P -value : "If the null hypothesis is true, what is the probability that we'd observe a more extreme test statistic in the direction of the alternative hypothesis than we did?" (Note how this question is equivalent to the question answered in criminal trials: "If the defendant is innocent, what is the chance that we'd observe such extreme criminal evidence?")
• Set the significance level, \(\alpha\), the probability of making a Type I error to be small — 0.01, 0.05, or 0.10. Compare the P -value to \(\alpha\). If the P -value is less than (or equal to) \(\alpha\), reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. If the P -value is greater than \(\alpha\), do not reject the null hypothesis.

Example S.3.2.1

Mean gpa section  .

In our example concerning the mean grade point average, suppose that our random sample of n = 15 students majoring in mathematics yields a test statistic t * equaling 2.5. Since n = 15, our test statistic t * has n - 1 = 14 degrees of freedom. Also, suppose we set our significance level α at 0.05 so that we have only a 5% chance of making a Type I error.

Right Tailed

The P -value for conducting the right-tailed test H 0 : μ = 3 versus H A : μ > 3 is the probability that we would observe a test statistic greater than t * = 2.5 if the population mean \(\mu\) really were 3. Recall that probability equals the area under the probability curve. The P -value is therefore the area under a t n - 1 = t 14 curve and to the right of the test statistic t * = 2.5. It can be shown using statistical software that the P -value is 0.0127. The graph depicts this visually.

The P -value, 0.0127, tells us it is "unlikely" that we would observe such an extreme test statistic t * in the direction of H A if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, our initial assumption that the null hypothesis is true must be incorrect. That is, since the P -value, 0.0127, is less than \(\alpha\) = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of the alternative hypothesis H A : μ > 3.

Note that we would not reject H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of H A : μ > 3 if we lowered our willingness to make a Type I error to \(\alpha\) = 0.01 instead, as the P -value, 0.0127, is then greater than \(\alpha\) = 0.01.

Left Tailed

In our example concerning the mean grade point average, suppose that our random sample of n = 15 students majoring in mathematics yields a test statistic t * instead of equaling -2.5. The P -value for conducting the left-tailed test H 0 : μ = 3 versus H A : μ < 3 is the probability that we would observe a test statistic less than t * = -2.5 if the population mean μ really were 3. The P -value is therefore the area under a t n - 1 = t 14 curve and to the left of the test statistic t* = -2.5. It can be shown using statistical software that the P -value is 0.0127. The graph depicts this visually.

The P -value, 0.0127, tells us it is "unlikely" that we would observe such an extreme test statistic t * in the direction of H A if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, our initial assumption that the null hypothesis is true must be incorrect. That is, since the P -value, 0.0127, is less than α = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of the alternative hypothesis H A : μ < 3.

Note that we would not reject H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of H A : μ < 3 if we lowered our willingness to make a Type I error to α = 0.01 instead, as the P -value, 0.0127, is then greater than \(\alpha\) = 0.01.

In our example concerning the mean grade point average, suppose again that our random sample of n = 15 students majoring in mathematics yields a test statistic t * instead of equaling -2.5. The P -value for conducting the two-tailed test H 0 : μ = 3 versus H A : μ ≠ 3 is the probability that we would observe a test statistic less than -2.5 or greater than 2.5 if the population mean μ really was 3. That is, the two-tailed test requires taking into account the possibility that the test statistic could fall into either tail (hence the name "two-tailed" test). The P -value is, therefore, the area under a t n - 1 = t 14 curve to the left of -2.5 and to the right of 2.5. It can be shown using statistical software that the P -value is 0.0127 + 0.0127, or 0.0254. The graph depicts this visually.

Note that the P -value for a two-tailed test is always two times the P -value for either of the one-tailed tests. The P -value, 0.0254, tells us it is "unlikely" that we would observe such an extreme test statistic t * in the direction of H A if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, our initial assumption that the null hypothesis is true must be incorrect. That is, since the P -value, 0.0254, is less than α = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of the alternative hypothesis H A : μ ≠ 3.

Note that we would not reject H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of H A : μ ≠ 3 if we lowered our willingness to make a Type I error to α = 0.01 instead, as the P -value, 0.0254, is then greater than \(\alpha\) = 0.01.

Now that we have reviewed the critical value and P -value approach procedures for each of the three possible hypotheses, let's look at three new examples — one of a right-tailed test, one of a left-tailed test, and one of a two-tailed test.

The good news is that, whenever possible, we will take advantage of the test statistics and P -values reported in statistical software, such as Minitab, to conduct our hypothesis tests in this course.

Z-test vs T-test: the differences and when to use each

What is hypothesis testing, what is a z-test, examples of a z-test, what is a t-test, examples of a t-test, how to know when to use z-test vs t-test, difference between z-test and t-test: a comparative table.

The EPAM Anywhere Editorial Team is an international collective of senior software engineers, managers and communications professionals who create, review and share their insights on technology, career, remote work, and the daily life here at Anywhere.

Testing is how you determine effectiveness. Whether you work as a data scientist , statistician, or software developer, to ensure quality, you must measure performance. Without tests, you could deploy flawed code, features, or data points.

With that in mind, the use cases of testing are endless. Machine learning models need statistical tests. Data analysis involves statistical tests to validate assumptions. Optimization of any kind requires evaluation. You even need to test the strength of your hypothesis before you begin an inquiry.

Let's explore two inferential statistics: the Z-test vs the T-test. That way you can understand their differences, their unique purposes, and when to use a Z-test vs T-test.

To start, imagine you have a good idea. At the moment of inception, you have no data to back up your idea. It is an unformed thought. But the idea is an excellent starting point that can launch a full investigation. We consider this starting point a hypothesis.

But what if your hypothesis is off-base? You don’t want to dive into a full-scale search if it is a pointless chase with no reward. That is a waste of resources. You need to determine if you have a workable hypothesis.

Enter hypothesis testing. It is a statistical act used to assess the viability of a hypothesis. The method discovers whether there is sufficient data to support your idea. If there is next to no significance, you do not have a very plausible hypothesis.

To confirm the validity of a hypothesis, you compare it against the status quo (also known as the null hypothesis). Your idea is something new, opposite from normal conditions (also known as the alternative hypothesis). It is zero sum: only one hypothesis between the null and alternate hypothesis can be true in a given set of parameters.

In such a comparison test, you can now determine validity. You can compare and contrast conditions to find meaningful conclusions. Whichever conditions become statistically apparent determines which hypothesis is plausible.

A Z-test is a test statistic. It works with two groups: the sample mean and the population mean. It will test whether these two groups are different.

With a Z-test, you know the population standard deviation. That is to ensure statistical accuracy as you compare one group (the sample mean) vs the second group (the population mean). In other words, you can minimize external confounding factors with a normal distribution. In addition, a defining characteristic of a Z-test is that it works with large sample sizes (typically more than 30, so we achieve normal distribution as defined by the central limit theorem). These are two crucial criteria for using a Z-test.

Within hypothesis testing, your null hypothesis states there is no difference between the two groups your Z-test will compare. Your alternative hypothesis will state there is a difference that your Z-test will expose.

How to perform a Z-test

A Z-test occurs in the following standard format:

• Formulate your hypothesis: First, define the parameters of your alternative and null hypothesis.
• Choose a critical value: Second, determine what you consider a viable difference between your two groups. This threshold determines when you can say the null hypothesis should be rejected. Common levels are 0.01 (1%) or 0.05 (5%) , values found to best balance Type I and Type II errors .
• Collect samples: Obtain the needed data. The data must be large enough and random.
• Calculate for a Z-score: Input your data into the standard Z-test statistics formula, shown below, where Z = standard score, x = observed value, mu = mean of the sample, sigma = standard deviation of the sample .
• Compare: If the statistical test is greater than the critical value, you have achieved statistical significance. The sample mean is so different so you can reject the null hypothesis. Your alternative hypothesis (something other than the status quo) is at work, and that's worth investigating.

There are different variations of a Z-test. Let's explore examples of one-sample and two-sample Z-tests.

One-sample Z-test

A one-sample Z-test looks for either an increase or a decrease. There is one sample group involved, taken from a population. We want to see if there is a difference between those two means.

For example, consider a school principal who believes their students' IQ is higher than the state average. The state average is 100 points (population mean), give or take 20 (the population standard deviation). To prove this hypothesis, the principal takes 50 students (the sample size) and finds their IQ scores. To their delight, they earn an average of 110.

But does the difference offer any statistical value? The principal then plugs the numbers into a Z-test. Any Z-score greater than the critical value would state there is sufficient significance. The claim that the students have an above-average IQ is valid.

Two-sample Z-test

A two-sample test involves comparing the average of two sample groups against the population means. It is to determine a difference between two independent samples.

For example, our principal wants to compare their students' IQ scores to the school across the street. They believe their students' average IQ is higher. They don’t need to know the exact numerical increase or decrease. All they want is proof that their student's average scores are higher than the other group.

To confirm the validity of this hypothesis, the principal will search for statistical significance. They can take a 50-student sample size from their school and a 50-student sample size from the rival school. Now in possession of both sample group's average IQ (and the sample standard deviation), they hope to find a number value that is not equal. And they need them to be unequal by a significant amount.

If the test statistic comes in less than the critical value, the differences are negligible. There is not enough evidence to say the hypothesis is worth exploring, the null hypothesis is maintained. He would not have enough proof that the IQ levels between the two schools are different.

Read full story

A T-test performs the same crucial function as a Z-test: determine if there is a difference between the means of two groups. If there is a significant difference, you have achieved statistical validity for your hypothesis.

However, a T-test involves a different set of factors. Most importantly, a T-test applies when you do not know the sample variance of your values. You must generalize the normal distribution (or T-distribution). Plus, there is an expectation that you do not possess all the data in a given scenario.

These conditions better match reality, as it is often hard to collect data from entire populations or always obtain a standard normal distribution. That is why T-tests are more widely applicable than Z-tests, though they operate with less precision.

How to perform a T-test

A T-test occurs in the following standard format:

• Formulate your hypothesis: First, define the parameters of your null and alternative hypothesis.
• Choose a critical value: Like a Z-test, determine what you consider a viable difference between your two groups.
• Collect data: Obtain the needed data. One of the key differences is degrees of freedom in the samples of a T-test, so try to define the typical values and range of values in each group.
• Calculate your T-score: Input your data into the T-test formula you chose. Here is a one-sample formula:
• Compare: If the statistical test is greater than the critical value, you have achieved statistical significance. The sample mean is so far from the population mean that you likely have a useful hypothesis.

There are several different kinds of T-tests as well. Let's go through the standard one-sample and two-sample T-tests.

One-sample T-test

A one-sample T-test looks for an increase or decrease compared to a population mean.

For example, your company just went through sales training. Now, the manager wants to know if the training helped improve sales.

Previous company sales data shows an average of $100 on each transaction from all workers. The null hypothesis would be no change. The alternative hypothesis (which you hope is significant), is that there is an improvement.

To test if there is significance, you take the sales average of 20 salesmen. That is the only available data, and you have no other data from nationwide stores. The average of that sample of salesmen in the past month is $130. We will also assume that the standard deviation is approximately equal .

With this set of factors, you can calculate your T-score with a T-test. You compare the sample result to the critical value. In addition, you assess it against the number of degrees of freedom. Since we know with smaller sample data sizes there is greater uncertainty, we allow more room for our data to vary.

After comparing, we may find a lot of significance. That means the data possesses enough strength to support our hypothesis that sales training likely impacted sales. Of course, this is an estimate, as we only assessed one factor with a small group. Sales could have risen for numerous other reasons. But with our set of assumptions, our hypothesis is valid.

Two-sample T-test

A two-sample T-test occurs the same as a two-sample Z-test and compares if two groups are equal when compared to a defined population parameter.

For example, consider English and non-native speakers. We want to see the effect of maternal language on test scores inside a country. To do that, we will offer both groups a reading test and compare those scores to the average.

Of course, finding the mean of an entire population of language speakers is impossible to procure. Still, we can make some assumptions and compare them with a smaller size. We take 15 English speakers and 15 non-native speakers and collect their results. We can decide on a critical score value on the reading test as well. If the average score on the test is not crucially different or outside the population standard deviation, our assumption failed. There is no significant difference between the groups, so the impact of maternal language is not worth investigating.

Both a Z-test and a T-test validate a hypothesis. Both are parametric tests that rely on assumptions. The key difference between Z-test and T-test is in their assumptions (e.g. population variance).

Key differences about the data used result in different applications. You want to use the appropriate tool, otherwise you won’t draw valid conclusions from your data.

So when should you use a Z-test vs a T-test? Here are some factors to consider:

• Sample size: If the available sample size is small, opt for a T-test. Small sample sizes are more variable, so the greater spread of distribution and estimation of error involved with T-tests is ideal.
• Knowledge of the population standard deviation: Z-tests are more precise and often simpler to execute. So if you know the standard deviation, use a Z-test.
• Test purpose: If you are assessing the validity of a mean, a T-test is the best choice. If you are working with a hypothesized population proportion, go for a Z-test.
• Assumption of normality: A Z-test assumes a normal distribution. This does not apply to all real-world scenarios. If you hope to validate a hypothesis that is not well-defined, opt for a T-test instead.
• Type of data: You can only work within the constraints of the available data. The more information the better, but that is often not possible given testing and collecting conditions. If you have limited data describing means between groups, opt for a T-test. If you have large data sets comparing means between populations, you can use a Z-test.

Knowing the key differences with each statistical test makes selecting the right tool far easier. Here is a table that can help you compare:

Statistical testing lets you determine the validity of a hypothesis. You discover validity by determining if there is a significant difference between your hypothesis and the status quo. If there is, you have a possible idea worth exploring.

That process has numerous applications in the field of computer science and data analysis . You might want to determine the performance of an app with an A/B test. Or you might need to test if an application fits within the defined limits and compare performance metrics. Z-tests and T-tests can depict whether there is significant evidence in each of these scenarios. With that information, you can take the appropriate measures to fix bugs or optimize processes.

Z-test and T-test are helpful tools, especially for hypothesis testing. For data engineers of the future, knowledge of statistical testing will only help your work and overall career trajectory.

Are you a data scientist looking for a job? Check out our remote data scientist jobs available .

Explore our Editorial Policy to learn more about our standards for content creation.

how to write effective usability test scripts

product feedback: how to use it to improve digital products

C# introduction: basics, introduction, and beginner projects

R vs Python in data science and machine learning

5 myths about solution architects dispelled

what is SQL?

what is .NET?

SDLC models: approach development the way that works for you

best react projects for a portfolio: from ideas to standout examples

Ruby on Rails interview questions

data scientist interview questions and answers

24 unique JavaScript projects for portfolio

top resume-boosting Java projects for your portfolio

network engineer interview questions

Selenium developer interview questions

step-by-step guide to creating, building, and showcasing your data analyst portfolio projects