hypothesis must be testable means

What Is a Testable Hypothesis?

• Scientific Method
• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a scientific question. A testable hypothesis is a  hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of testing, data collection, or experience. Only testable hypotheses can be used to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method .

Requirements for a Testable Hypothesis

In order to be considered testable, two criteria must be met:

• It must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is true.
• It must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is false.
• It must be possible to reproduce the results of the hypothesis.

Examples of a Testable Hypothesis

All the following hypotheses are testable. It's important, however, to note that while it's possible to say that the hypothesis is correct, much more research would be required to answer the question " why is this hypothesis correct?" 

• Students who attend class have higher grades than students who skip class.  This is testable because it is possible to compare the grades of students who do and do not skip class and then analyze the resulting data. Another person could conduct the same research and come up with the same results.
• People exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light have a higher incidence of cancer than the norm.  This is testable because it is possible to find a group of people who have been exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light and compare their cancer rates to the average.
• If you put people in a dark room, then they will be unable to tell when an infrared light turns on.  This hypothesis is testable because it is possible to put a group of people into a dark room, turn on an infrared light, and ask the people in the room whether or not an infrared light has been turned on.

Examples of a Hypothesis Not Written in a Testable Form

• It doesn't matter whether or not you skip class.  This hypothesis can't be tested because it doesn't make any actual claim regarding the outcome of skipping class. "It doesn't matter" doesn't have any specific meaning, so it can't be tested.
• Ultraviolet light could cause cancer.  The word "could" makes a hypothesis extremely difficult to test because it is very vague. There "could," for example, be UFOs watching us at every moment, even though it's impossible to prove that they are there!
• Goldfish make better pets than guinea pigs.  This is not a hypothesis; it's a matter of opinion. There is no agreed-upon definition of what a "better" pet is, so while it is possible to argue the point, there is no way to prove it.

How to Propose a Testable Hypothesis

Now that you know what a testable hypothesis is, here are tips for proposing one.

• Try to write the hypothesis as an if-then statement. If you take an action, then a certain outcome is expected.
• Identify the independent and dependent variable in the hypothesis. The independent variable is what you are controlling or changing. You measure the effect this has on the dependent variable.
• Write the hypothesis in such a way that you can prove or disprove it. For example, a person has skin cancer, you can't prove they got it from being out in the sun. However, you can demonstrate a relationship between exposure to ultraviolet light and increased risk of skin cancer.
• Make sure you are proposing a hypothesis you can test with reproducible results. If your face breaks out, you can't prove the breakout was caused by the french fries you had for dinner last night. However, you can measure whether or not eating french fries is associated with breaking out. It's a matter of gathering enough data to be able to reproduce results and draw a conclusion.
• What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• How To Design a Science Fair Experiment
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
• Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• Scientific Method Flow Chart
• Null Hypothesis Examples
• What Is an Experiment? Definition and Design
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples
• The Visible Spectrum: Wavelengths and Colors

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation.

Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments and the collection and analysis of data. It is an essential element of the scientific method, as it allows researchers to make predictions about the outcome of their experiments and to test those predictions to determine their accuracy.

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is a statement that predicts a relationship between variables. It is usually formulated as a specific statement that can be tested through research, and it is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is no significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as a starting point for testing the research hypothesis, and if the results of the study reject the null hypothesis, it suggests that there is a significant difference or relationship between variables.

Alternative Hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is a significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as an alternative to the null hypothesis and is tested against the null hypothesis to determine which statement is more accurate.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the direction of the relationship between variables. For example, a researcher might predict that increasing the amount of exercise will result in a decrease in body weight.

Non-directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables but does not specify the direction. For example, a researcher might predict that there is a relationship between the amount of exercise and body weight, but they do not specify whether increasing or decreasing exercise will affect body weight.

Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement that assumes a particular statistical model or distribution for the data. It is often used in statistical analysis to test the significance of a particular result.

Composite Hypothesis

A composite hypothesis is a statement that assumes more than one condition or outcome. It can be divided into several sub-hypotheses, each of which represents a different possible outcome.

Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement that is based on observed phenomena or data. It is often used in scientific research to develop theories or models that explain the observed phenomena.

Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement that assumes only one outcome or condition. It is often used in scientific research to test a single variable or factor.

Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is a statement that assumes multiple outcomes or conditions. It is often used in scientific research to test the effects of multiple variables or factors on a particular outcome.

Applications of Hypothesis

Hypotheses are used in various fields to guide research and make predictions about the outcomes of experiments or observations. Here are some examples of how hypotheses are applied in different fields:

• Science : In scientific research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain natural phenomena. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular variable on a natural system, such as the effects of climate change on an ecosystem.
• Medicine : In medical research, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of treatments and therapies for specific conditions. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new drug on a particular disease.
• Psychology : In psychology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of human behavior and cognition. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular stimulus on the brain or behavior.
• Sociology : In sociology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of social phenomena, such as the effects of social structures or institutions on human behavior. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of income inequality on crime rates.
• Business : In business research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain business phenomena, such as consumer behavior or market trends. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new marketing campaign on consumer buying behavior.
• Engineering : In engineering, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of new technologies or designs. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the efficiency of a new solar panel design.

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

The first step is to identify the research question that you want to answer through your study. This question should be clear, specific, and focused. It should be something that can be investigated empirically and that has some relevance or significance in the field.

Conduct a Literature Review

Before writing your hypothesis, it’s essential to conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known about the topic. This will help you to identify the research gap and formulate a hypothesis that builds on existing knowledge.

Determine the Variables

The next step is to identify the variables involved in the research question. A variable is any characteristic or factor that can vary or change. There are two types of variables: independent and dependent. The independent variable is the one that is manipulated or changed by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the one that is measured or observed as a result of the independent variable.

Formulate the Hypothesis

Based on the research question and the variables involved, you can now formulate your hypothesis. A hypothesis should be a clear and concise statement that predicts the relationship between the variables. It should be testable through empirical research and based on existing theory or evidence.

Write the Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that you are testing. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables. It is important to write the null hypothesis because it allows you to compare your results with what would be expected by chance.

Refine the Hypothesis

After formulating the hypothesis, it’s important to refine it and make it more precise. This may involve clarifying the variables, specifying the direction of the relationship, or making the hypothesis more testable.

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

• Psychology : “Increased exposure to violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adolescents.”
• Biology : “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased plant growth.”
• Sociology : “Individuals who grow up in households with higher socioeconomic status will have higher levels of education and income as adults.”
• Education : “Implementing a new teaching method will result in higher student achievement scores.”
• Marketing : “Customers who receive a personalized email will be more likely to make a purchase than those who receive a generic email.”
• Physics : “An increase in temperature will cause an increase in the volume of a gas, assuming all other variables remain constant.”
• Medicine : “Consuming a diet high in saturated fats will increase the risk of developing heart disease.”

Purpose of Hypothesis

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable explanation for an observed phenomenon or a prediction of a future outcome based on existing knowledge or theories. A hypothesis is an essential part of the scientific method and helps to guide the research process by providing a clear focus for investigation. It enables scientists to design experiments or studies to gather evidence and data that can support or refute the proposed explanation or prediction.

The formulation of a hypothesis is based on existing knowledge, observations, and theories, and it should be specific, testable, and falsifiable. A specific hypothesis helps to define the research question, which is important in the research process as it guides the selection of an appropriate research design and methodology. Testability of the hypothesis means that it can be proven or disproven through empirical data collection and analysis. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be proven wrong if it is incorrect.

In addition to guiding the research process, the testing of hypotheses can lead to new discoveries and advancements in scientific knowledge. When a hypothesis is supported by the data, it can be used to develop new theories or models to explain the observed phenomenon. When a hypothesis is not supported by the data, it can help to refine existing theories or prompt the development of new hypotheses to explain the phenomenon.

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

• In scientific research , hypotheses are used to guide the design of experiments and to help researchers make predictions about the outcomes of those experiments.
• In social science research , hypotheses are used to test theories about human behavior, social relationships, and other phenomena.
• I n business , hypotheses can be used to guide decisions about marketing, product development, and other areas. For example, a hypothesis might be that a new product will sell well in a particular market, and this hypothesis can be tested through market research.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable : A hypothesis must be able to be tested through observation or experimentation. This means that it must be possible to collect data that will either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Falsifiable : A hypothesis must be able to be proven false if it is not supported by the data. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific hypothesis.
• Clear and concise : A hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner so that it can be easily understood and tested.
• Based on existing knowledge : A hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and research in the field. It should not be based on personal beliefs or opinions.
• Specific : A hypothesis should be specific in terms of the variables being tested and the predicted outcome. This will help to ensure that the research is focused and well-designed.
• Tentative: A hypothesis is a tentative statement or assumption that requires further testing and evidence to be confirmed or refuted. It is not a final conclusion or assertion.
• Relevant : A hypothesis should be relevant to the research question or problem being studied. It should address a gap in knowledge or provide a new perspective on the issue.

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

• Guides research: A hypothesis provides a clear and specific direction for research. It helps to focus the research question, select appropriate methods and variables, and interpret the results.
• Predictive powe r: A hypothesis makes predictions about the outcome of research, which can be tested through experimentation. This allows researchers to evaluate the validity of the hypothesis and make new discoveries.
• Facilitates communication: A hypothesis provides a common language and framework for scientists to communicate with one another about their research. This helps to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promotes collaboration.
• Efficient use of resources: A hypothesis helps researchers to use their time, resources, and funding efficiently by directing them towards specific research questions and methods that are most likely to yield results.
• Provides a basis for further research: A hypothesis that is supported by data provides a basis for further research and exploration. It can lead to new hypotheses, theories, and discoveries.
• Increases objectivity: A hypothesis can help to increase objectivity in research by providing a clear and specific framework for testing and interpreting results. This can reduce bias and increase the reliability of research findings.

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

• Limited to observable phenomena: Hypotheses are limited to observable phenomena and cannot account for unobservable or intangible factors. This means that some research questions may not be amenable to hypothesis testing.
• May be inaccurate or incomplete: Hypotheses are based on existing knowledge and research, which may be incomplete or inaccurate. This can lead to flawed hypotheses and erroneous conclusions.
• May be biased: Hypotheses may be biased by the researcher’s own beliefs, values, or assumptions. This can lead to selective interpretation of data and a lack of objectivity in research.
• Cannot prove causation: A hypothesis can only show a correlation between variables, but it cannot prove causation. This requires further experimentation and analysis.
• Limited to specific contexts: Hypotheses are limited to specific contexts and may not be generalizable to other situations or populations. This means that results may not be applicable in other contexts or may require further testing.
• May be affected by chance : Hypotheses may be affected by chance or random variation, which can obscure or distort the true relationship between variables.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

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.

Biology library

Course: biology library   >   unit 1, the scientific method.

• Controlled experiments
• The scientific method and experimental design

Introduction

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis , or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Scientific method example: Failure to toast

1. make an observation..

• Observation: the toaster won't toast.

2. Ask a question.

• Question: Why won't my toaster toast?

3. Propose a hypothesis.

• Hypothesis: Maybe the outlet is broken.

4. Make predictions.

• Prediction: If I plug the toaster into a different outlet, then it will toast the bread.

5. Test the predictions.

• Test of prediction: Plug the toaster into a different outlet and try again.
• If the toaster does toast, then the hypothesis is supported—likely correct.
• If the toaster doesn't toast, then the hypothesis is not supported—likely wrong.

Logical possibility

Practical possibility, building a body of evidence, 6. iterate..

• Iteration time!
• If the hypothesis was supported, we might do additional tests to confirm it, or revise it to be more specific. For instance, we might investigate why the outlet is broken.
• If the hypothesis was not supported, we would come up with a new hypothesis. For instance, the next hypothesis might be that there's a broken wire in the toaster.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Hypothesis Testing | A Step-by-Step Guide with Easy Examples

Published on November 8, 2019 by Rebecca Bevans . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics . It is most often used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses, that arise from theories.

There are 5 main steps in hypothesis testing:

• State your research hypothesis as a null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis (H o ) and (H a  or H 1 ).
• Collect data in a way designed to test the hypothesis.
• Perform an appropriate statistical test .
• Decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis.
• Present the findings in your results and discussion section.

Though the specific details might vary, the procedure you will use when testing a hypothesis will always follow some version of these steps.

Table of contents

Step 1: state your null and alternate hypothesis, step 2: collect data, step 3: perform a statistical test, step 4: decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis, step 5: present your findings, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about hypothesis testing.

After developing your initial research hypothesis (the prediction that you want to investigate), it is important to restate it as a null (H o ) and alternate (H a ) hypothesis so that you can test it mathematically.

The alternate hypothesis is usually your initial hypothesis that predicts a relationship between variables. The null hypothesis is a prediction of no relationship between the variables you are interested in.

• H 0 : Men are, on average, not taller than women. H a : Men are, on average, taller than women.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

For a statistical test to be valid , it is important to perform sampling and collect data in a way that is designed to test your hypothesis. If your data are not representative, then you cannot make statistical inferences about the population you are interested in.

There are a variety of statistical tests available, but they are all based on the comparison of within-group variance (how spread out the data is within a category) versus between-group variance (how different the categories are from one another).

If the between-group variance is large enough that there is little or no overlap between groups, then your statistical test will reflect that by showing a low p -value . This means it is unlikely that the differences between these groups came about by chance.

Alternatively, if there is high within-group variance and low between-group variance, then your statistical test will reflect that with a high p -value. This means it is likely that any difference you measure between groups is due to chance.

Your choice of statistical test will be based on the type of variables and the level of measurement of your collected data .

• an estimate of the difference in average height between the two groups.
• a p -value showing how likely you are to see this difference if the null hypothesis of no difference is true.

Based on the outcome of your statistical test, you will have to decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis.

In most cases you will use the p -value generated by your statistical test to guide your decision. And in most cases, your predetermined level of significance for rejecting the null hypothesis will be 0.05 – that is, when there is a less than 5% chance that you would see these results if the null hypothesis were true.

In some cases, researchers choose a more conservative level of significance, such as 0.01 (1%). This minimizes the risk of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis ( Type I error ).

The results of hypothesis testing will be presented in the results and discussion sections of your research paper , dissertation or thesis .

In the results section you should give a brief summary of the data and a summary of the results of your statistical test (for example, the estimated difference between group means and associated p -value). In the discussion , you can discuss whether your initial hypothesis was supported by your results or not.

In the formal language of hypothesis testing, we talk about rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis. You will probably be asked to do this in your statistics assignments.

However, when presenting research results in academic papers we rarely talk this way. Instead, we go back to our alternate hypothesis (in this case, the hypothesis that men are on average taller than women) and state whether the result of our test did or did not support the alternate hypothesis.

If your null hypothesis was rejected, this result is interpreted as “supported the alternate hypothesis.”

These are superficial differences; you can see that they mean the same thing.

You might notice that we don’t say that we reject or fail to reject the alternate hypothesis . This is because hypothesis testing is not designed to prove or disprove anything. It is only designed to test whether a pattern we measure could have arisen spuriously, or by chance.

If we reject the null hypothesis based on our research (i.e., we find that it is unlikely that the pattern arose by chance), then we can say our test lends support to our hypothesis . But if the pattern does not pass our decision rule, meaning that it could have arisen by chance, then we say the test is inconsistent with our hypothesis .

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Descriptive statistics
• Measures of central tendency
• Correlation coefficient

Methodology

• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Types of interviews
• Cohort study
• Thematic analysis

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Survivorship bias
• Availability heuristic
• Nonresponse bias
• Regression to the mean

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bevans, R. (2023, June 22). Hypothesis Testing | A Step-by-Step Guide with Easy Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/hypothesis-testing/

Is this article helpful?

Rebecca Bevans

Other students also liked, choosing the right statistical test | types & examples, understanding p values | definition and examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A research hypothesis, in its plural form “hypotheses,” is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method .

Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding

Some key points about hypotheses:

• A hypothesis expresses an expected pattern or relationship. It connects the variables under investigation.
• It is stated in clear, precise terms before any data collection or analysis occurs. This makes the hypothesis testable.
• A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It should be possible, even if unlikely in practice, to collect data that disconfirms rather than supports the hypothesis.
• Hypotheses guide research. Scientists design studies to explicitly evaluate hypotheses about how nature works.
• For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable against empirical evidence. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.
• Hypotheses are informed by background knowledge and observation, but go beyond what is already known to propose an explanation of how or why something occurs.

Predictions typically arise from a thorough knowledge of the research literature, curiosity about real-world problems or implications, and integrating this to advance theory. They build on existing literature while providing new insight.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

The research hypothesis is often called the alternative or experimental hypothesis in experimental research.

It typically suggests a potential relationship between two key variables: the independent variable, which the researcher manipulates, and the dependent variable, which is measured based on those changes.

The alternative hypothesis states a relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable affects the other).

A hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a key component of the scientific method. Some key points about hypotheses:

• Important hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested empirically. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.

In summary, a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement of what researchers expect to happen in a study and why. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

An experimental hypothesis predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.

It states that the results are not due to chance and are significant in supporting the theory being investigated.

The alternative hypothesis can be directional, indicating a specific direction of the effect, or non-directional, suggesting a difference without specifying its nature. It’s what researchers aim to support or demonstrate through their study.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). There will be no changes in the dependent variable due to manipulating the independent variable.

It states results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.

The null hypothesis, positing no effect or relationship, is a foundational contrast to the research hypothesis in scientific inquiry. It establishes a baseline for statistical testing, promoting objectivity by initiating research from a neutral stance.

Many statistical methods are tailored to test the null hypothesis, determining the likelihood of observed results if no true effect exists.

This dual-hypothesis approach provides clarity, ensuring that research intentions are explicit, and fosters consistency across scientific studies, enhancing the standardization and interpretability of research outcomes.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis, also known as a two-tailed hypothesis, predicts that there is a difference or relationship between two variables but does not specify the direction of this relationship.

It merely indicates that a change or effect will occur without predicting which group will have higher or lower values.

For example, “There is a difference in performance between Group A and Group B” is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the nature of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. It predicts in which direction the change will take place. (i.e., greater, smaller, less, more)

It specifies whether one variable is greater, lesser, or different from another, rather than just indicating that there’s a difference without specifying its nature.

For example, “Exercise increases weight loss” is a directional hypothesis.

Falsifiability

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be testable and irrefutable.

Falsifiability emphasizes that scientific claims shouldn’t just be confirmable but should also have the potential to be proven wrong.

It means that there should exist some potential evidence or experiment that could prove the proposition false.

However many confirming instances exist for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white,” can be falsified by observing a black swan.

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually provide evidence to support a research hypothesis.

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

Hypotheses make probabilistic predictions. They state the expected outcome if a particular relationship exists. However, a study result supporting a hypothesis does not definitively prove it is true.

All studies have limitations. There may be unknown confounding factors or issues that limit the certainty of conclusions. Additional studies may yield different results.

In science, hypotheses can realistically only be supported with some degree of confidence, not proven. The process of science is to incrementally accumulate evidence for and against hypothesized relationships in an ongoing pursuit of better models and explanations that best fit the empirical data. But hypotheses remain open to revision and rejection if that is where the evidence leads.

• Disproving a hypothesis is definitive. Solid disconfirmatory evidence will falsify a hypothesis and require altering or discarding it based on the evidence.
• However, confirming evidence is always open to revision. Other explanations may account for the same results, and additional or contradictory evidence may emerge over time.

We can never 100% prove the alternative hypothesis. Instead, we see if we can disprove, or reject the null hypothesis.

If we reject the null hypothesis, this doesn’t mean that our alternative hypothesis is correct but does support the alternative/experimental hypothesis.

Upon analysis of the results, an alternative hypothesis can be rejected or supported, but it can never be proven to be correct. We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist which could refute a theory.

How to Write a Hypothesis

• Identify variables . The researcher manipulates the independent variable and the dependent variable is the measured outcome.
• Operationalized the variables being investigated . Operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making the variables physically measurable or testable, e.g. if you are about to study aggression, you might count the number of punches given by participants.
• Decide on a direction for your prediction . If there is evidence in the literature to support a specific effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis. If there are limited or ambiguous findings in the literature regarding the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis.
• Make it Testable : Ensure your hypothesis can be tested through experimentation or observation. It should be possible to prove it false (principle of falsifiability).
• Clear & concise language . A strong hypothesis is concise (typically one to two sentences long), and formulated using clear and straightforward language, ensuring it’s easily understood and testable.

Consider a hypothesis many teachers might subscribe to: students work better on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon (IV=Day, DV= Standard of work).

Now, if we decide to study this by giving the same group of students a lesson on a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon and then measuring their immediate recall of the material covered in each session, we would end up with the following:

• The alternative hypothesis states that students will recall significantly more information on a Monday morning than on a Friday afternoon.
• The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant difference in the amount recalled on a Monday morning compared to a Friday afternoon. Any difference will be due to chance or confounding factors.

More Examples

• Memory : Participants exposed to classical music during study sessions will recall more items from a list than those who studied in silence.
• Social Psychology : Individuals who frequently engage in social media use will report higher levels of perceived social isolation compared to those who use it infrequently.
• Developmental Psychology : Children who engage in regular imaginative play have better problem-solving skills than those who don’t.
• Clinical Psychology : Cognitive-behavioral therapy will be more effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety over a 6-month period compared to traditional talk therapy.
• Cognitive Psychology : Individuals who multitask between various electronic devices will have shorter attention spans on focused tasks than those who single-task.
• Health Psychology : Patients who practice mindfulness meditation will experience lower levels of chronic pain compared to those who don’t meditate.
• Organizational Psychology : Employees in open-plan offices will report higher levels of stress than those in private offices.
• Behavioral Psychology : Rats rewarded with food after pressing a lever will press it more frequently than rats who receive no reward.

How to Write a Hypothesis: A Step-by-Step Guide

Introduction

An overview of the research hypothesis, different types of hypotheses, variables in a hypothesis, how to formulate an effective research hypothesis, designing a study around your hypothesis.

The scientific method can derive and test predictions as hypotheses. Empirical research can then provide support (or lack thereof) for the hypotheses. Even failure to find support for a hypothesis still represents a valuable contribution to scientific knowledge. Let's look more closely at the idea of the hypothesis and the role it plays in research.

As much as the term exists in everyday language, there is a detailed development that informs the word "hypothesis" when applied to research. A good research hypothesis is informed by prior research and guides research design and data analysis , so it is important to understand how a hypothesis is defined and understood by researchers.

What is the simple definition of a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about an outcome between two or more variables . It functions as a navigational tool in the research process, directing what you aim to predict and how.

What is the hypothesis for in research?

In research, a hypothesis serves as the cornerstone for your empirical study. It not only lays out what you aim to investigate but also provides a structured approach for your data collection and analysis.

Essentially, it bridges the gap between the theoretical and the empirical, guiding your investigation throughout its course.

What is an example of a hypothesis?

If you are studying the relationship between physical exercise and mental health, a suitable hypothesis could be: "Regular physical exercise leads to improved mental well-being among adults."

This statement constitutes a specific and testable hypothesis that directly relates to the variables you are investigating.

What makes a good hypothesis?

A good hypothesis possesses several key characteristics. Firstly, it must be testable, allowing you to analyze data through empirical means, such as observation or experimentation, to assess if there is significant support for the hypothesis. Secondly, a hypothesis should be specific and unambiguous, giving a clear understanding of the expected relationship between variables. Lastly, it should be grounded in existing research or theoretical frameworks , ensuring its relevance and applicability.

Understanding the types of hypotheses can greatly enhance how you construct and work with hypotheses. While all hypotheses serve the essential function of guiding your study, there are varying purposes among the types of hypotheses. In addition, all hypotheses stand in contrast to the null hypothesis, or the assumption that there is no significant relationship between the variables .

Here, we explore various kinds of hypotheses to provide you with the tools needed to craft effective hypotheses for your specific research needs. Bear in mind that many of these hypothesis types may overlap with one another, and the specific type that is typically used will likely depend on the area of research and methodology you are following.

Null hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no effect or relationship between the variables being studied. In statistical terms, it serves as the default assumption that any observed differences are due to random chance.

For example, if you're studying the effect of a drug on blood pressure, the null hypothesis might state that the drug has no effect.

Alternative hypothesis

Contrary to the null hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis suggests that there is a significant relationship or effect between variables.

Using the drug example, the alternative hypothesis would posit that the drug does indeed affect blood pressure. This is what researchers aim to prove.

Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis makes a prediction about the relationship between two variables, and only two variables.

For example, "Increased study time results in better exam scores." Here, "study time" and "exam scores" are the only variables involved.

Complex hypothesis

A complex hypothesis, as the name suggests, involves more than two variables. For instance, "Increased study time and access to resources result in better exam scores." Here, "study time," "access to resources," and "exam scores" are all variables.

This hypothesis refers to multiple potential mediating variables. Other hypotheses could also include predictions about variables that moderate the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable .

Directional hypothesis

A directional hypothesis specifies the direction of the expected relationship between variables. For example, "Eating more fruits and vegetables leads to a decrease in heart disease."

Here, the direction of heart disease is explicitly predicted to decrease, due to effects from eating more fruits and vegetables. All hypotheses typically specify the expected direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent variable, such that researchers can test if this prediction holds in their data analysis .

Statistical hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is one that is testable through statistical methods, providing a numerical value that can be analyzed. This is commonly seen in quantitative research .

For example, "There is a statistically significant difference in test scores between students who study for one hour and those who study for two."

Empirical hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is derived from observations and is tested through empirical methods, often through experimentation or survey data . Empirical hypotheses may also be assessed with statistical analyses.

For example, "Regular exercise is correlated with a lower incidence of depression," could be tested through surveys that measure exercise frequency and depression levels.

Causal hypothesis

A causal hypothesis proposes that one variable causes a change in another. This type of hypothesis is often tested through controlled experiments.

For example, "Smoking causes lung cancer," assumes a direct causal relationship.

Associative hypothesis

Unlike causal hypotheses, associative hypotheses suggest a relationship between variables but do not imply causation.

For instance, "People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer," notes an association but doesn't claim that smoking causes lung cancer directly.

Relational hypothesis

A relational hypothesis explores the relationship between two or more variables but doesn't specify the nature of the relationship.

For example, "There is a relationship between diet and heart health," leaves the nature of the relationship (causal, associative, etc.) open to interpretation.

Logical hypothesis

A logical hypothesis is based on sound reasoning and logical principles. It's often used in theoretical research to explore abstract concepts, rather than being based on empirical data.

For example, "If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal," employs logical reasoning to make its point.

Let ATLAS.ti take you from research question to key insights

Get started with a free trial and see how ATLAS.ti can make the most of your data.

In any research hypothesis, variables play a critical role. These are the elements or factors that the researcher manipulates, controls, or measures. Understanding variables is essential for crafting a clear, testable hypothesis and for the stages of research that follow, such as data collection and analysis.

In the realm of hypotheses, there are generally two types of variables to consider: independent and dependent. Independent variables are what you, as the researcher, manipulate or change in your study. It's considered the cause in the relationship you're investigating. For instance, in a study examining the impact of sleep duration on academic performance, the independent variable would be the amount of sleep participants get.

Conversely, the dependent variable is the outcome you measure to gauge the effect of your manipulation. It's the effect in the cause-and-effect relationship. The dependent variable thus refers to the main outcome of interest in your study. In the same sleep study example, the academic performance, perhaps measured by exam scores or GPA, would be the dependent variable.

Beyond these two primary types, you might also encounter control variables. These are variables that could potentially influence the outcome and are therefore kept constant to isolate the relationship between the independent and dependent variables . For example, in the sleep and academic performance study, control variables could include age, diet, or even the subject of study.

By clearly identifying and understanding the roles of these variables in your hypothesis, you set the stage for a methodologically sound research project. It helps you develop focused research questions, design appropriate experiments or observations, and carry out meaningful data analysis . It's a step that lays the groundwork for the success of your entire study.

Crafting a strong, testable hypothesis is crucial for the success of any research project. It sets the stage for everything from your study design to data collection and analysis . Below are some key considerations to keep in mind when formulating your hypothesis:

• Be specific : A vague hypothesis can lead to ambiguous results and interpretations . Clearly define your variables and the expected relationship between them.
• Ensure testability : A good hypothesis should be testable through empirical means, whether by observation , experimentation, or other forms of data analysis.
• Ground in literature : Before creating your hypothesis, consult existing research and theories. This not only helps you identify gaps in current knowledge but also gives you valuable context and credibility for crafting your hypothesis.
• Use simple language : While your hypothesis should be conceptually sound, it doesn't have to be complicated. Aim for clarity and simplicity in your wording.
• State direction, if applicable : If your hypothesis involves a directional outcome (e.g., "increase" or "decrease"), make sure to specify this. You also need to think about how you will measure whether or not the outcome moved in the direction you predicted.
• Keep it focused : One of the common pitfalls in hypothesis formulation is trying to answer too many questions at once. Keep your hypothesis focused on a specific issue or relationship.
• Account for control variables : Identify any variables that could potentially impact the outcome and consider how you will control for them in your study.
• Be ethical : Make sure your hypothesis and the methods for testing it comply with ethical standards , particularly if your research involves human or animal subjects.

Designing your study involves multiple key phases that help ensure the rigor and validity of your research. Here we discuss these crucial components in more detail.

Literature review

Starting with a comprehensive literature review is essential. This step allows you to understand the existing body of knowledge related to your hypothesis and helps you identify gaps that your research could fill. Your research should aim to contribute some novel understanding to existing literature, and your hypotheses can reflect this. A literature review also provides valuable insights into how similar research projects were executed, thereby helping you fine-tune your own approach.

Research methods

Choosing the right research methods is critical. Whether it's a survey, an experiment, or observational study, the methodology should be the most appropriate for testing your hypothesis. Your choice of methods will also depend on whether your research is quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods. Make sure the chosen methods align well with the variables you are studying and the type of data you need.

Preliminary research

Before diving into a full-scale study, it’s often beneficial to conduct preliminary research or a pilot study . This allows you to test your research methods on a smaller scale, refine your tools, and identify any potential issues. For instance, a pilot survey can help you determine if your questions are clear and if the survey effectively captures the data you need. This step can save you both time and resources in the long run.

Data analysis

Finally, planning your data analysis in advance is crucial for a successful study. Decide which statistical or analytical tools are most suited for your data type and research questions . For quantitative research, you might opt for t-tests, ANOVA, or regression analyses. For qualitative research , thematic analysis or grounded theory may be more appropriate. This phase is integral for interpreting your results and drawing meaningful conclusions in relation to your research question.

Turn data into evidence for insights with ATLAS.ti

Powerful analysis for your research paper or presentation is at your fingertips starting with a free trial.

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
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.36(50); 2021 Dec 27

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Durga prasanna misra.

1 Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Armen Yuri Gasparyan

2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.

Olena Zimba

3 Department of Internal Medicine #2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.

Marlen Yessirkepov

4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

Vikas Agarwal

George d. kitas.

5 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

Graphical Abstract

DEFINING WORKING AND STANDALONE SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

Science is the systematized description of natural truths and facts. Routine observations of existing life phenomena lead to the creative thinking and generation of ideas about mechanisms of such phenomena and related human interventions. Such ideas presented in a structured format can be viewed as hypotheses. After generating a hypothesis, it is necessary to test it to prove its validity. Thus, hypothesis can be defined as a proposed mechanism of a naturally occurring event or a proposed outcome of an intervention. 1 , 2

Hypothesis testing requires choosing the most appropriate methodology and adequately powering statistically the study to be able to “prove” or “disprove” it within predetermined and widely accepted levels of certainty. This entails sample size calculation that often takes into account previously published observations and pilot studies. 2 , 3 In the era of digitization, hypothesis generation and testing may benefit from the availability of numerous platforms for data dissemination, social networking, and expert validation. Related expert evaluations may reveal strengths and limitations of proposed ideas at early stages of post-publication promotion, preventing the implementation of unsupported controversial points. 4

Thus, hypothesis generation is an important initial step in the research workflow, reflecting accumulating evidence and experts' stance. In this article, we overview the genesis and importance of scientific hypotheses and their relevance in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

DO WE NEED HYPOTHESES FOR ALL STUDY DESIGNS?

Broadly, research can be categorized as primary or secondary. In the context of medicine, primary research may include real-life observations of disease presentations and outcomes. Single case descriptions, which often lead to new ideas and hypotheses, serve as important starting points or justifications for case series and cohort studies. The importance of case descriptions is particularly evident in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic when unique, educational case reports have heralded a new era in clinical medicine. 5

Case series serve similar purpose to single case reports, but are based on a slightly larger quantum of information. Observational studies, including online surveys, describe the existing phenomena at a larger scale, often involving various control groups. Observational studies include variable-scale epidemiological investigations at different time points. Interventional studies detail the results of therapeutic interventions.

Secondary research is based on already published literature and does not directly involve human or animal subjects. Review articles are generated by secondary research. These could be systematic reviews which follow methods akin to primary research but with the unit of study being published papers rather than humans or animals. Systematic reviews have a rigid structure with a mandatory search strategy encompassing multiple databases, systematic screening of search results against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, critical appraisal of study quality and an optional component of collating results across studies quantitatively to derive summary estimates (meta-analysis). 6 Narrative reviews, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure. Systematic literature searches to minimise bias in selection of articles are highly recommended but not mandatory. 7 Narrative reviews are influenced by the authors' viewpoint who may preferentially analyse selected sets of articles. 8

In relation to primary research, case studies and case series are generally not driven by a working hypothesis. Rather, they serve as a basis to generate a hypothesis. Observational or interventional studies should have a hypothesis for choosing research design and sample size. The results of observational and interventional studies further lead to the generation of new hypotheses, testing of which forms the basis of future studies. Review articles, on the other hand, may not be hypothesis-driven, but form fertile ground to generate future hypotheses for evaluation. Fig. 1 summarizes which type of studies are hypothesis-driven and which lead on to hypothesis generation.

STANDARDS OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

A review of the published literature did not enable the identification of clearly defined standards for working and scientific hypotheses. It is essential to distinguish influential versus not influential hypotheses, evidence-based hypotheses versus a priori statements and ideas, ethical versus unethical, or potentially harmful ideas. The following points are proposed for consideration while generating working and scientific hypotheses. 1 , 2 Table 1 summarizes these points.

Evidence-based data

A scientific hypothesis should have a sound basis on previously published literature as well as the scientist's observations. Randomly generated (a priori) hypotheses are unlikely to be proven. A thorough literature search should form the basis of a hypothesis based on published evidence. 7

Unless a scientific hypothesis can be tested, it can neither be proven nor be disproven. Therefore, a scientific hypothesis should be amenable to testing with the available technologies and the present understanding of science.

Supported by pilot studies

If a hypothesis is based purely on a novel observation by the scientist in question, it should be grounded on some preliminary studies to support it. For example, if a drug that targets a specific cell population is hypothesized to be useful in a particular disease setting, then there must be some preliminary evidence that the specific cell population plays a role in driving that disease process.

Testable by ethical studies

The hypothesis should be testable by experiments that are ethically acceptable. 9 For example, a hypothesis that parachutes reduce mortality from falls from an airplane cannot be tested using a randomized controlled trial. 10 This is because it is obvious that all those jumping from a flying plane without a parachute would likely die. Similarly, the hypothesis that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer cannot be tested by a clinical trial that makes people take up smoking (since there is considerable evidence for the health hazards associated with smoking). Instead, long-term observational studies comparing outcomes in those who smoke and those who do not, as was performed in the landmark epidemiological case control study by Doll and Hill, 11 are more ethical and practical.

Balance between scientific temper and controversy

Novel findings, including novel hypotheses, particularly those that challenge established norms, are bound to face resistance for their wider acceptance. Such resistance is inevitable until the time such findings are proven with appropriate scientific rigor. However, hypotheses that generate controversy are generally unwelcome. For example, at the time the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS was taking foot, there were numerous deniers that refused to believe that HIV caused AIDS. 12 , 13 Similarly, at a time when climate change is causing catastrophic changes to weather patterns worldwide, denial that climate change is occurring and consequent attempts to block climate change are certainly unwelcome. 14 The denialism and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, including unfortunate examples of vaccine hesitancy, are more recent examples of controversial hypotheses not backed by science. 15 , 16 An example of a controversial hypothesis that was a revolutionary scientific breakthrough was the hypothesis put forth by Warren and Marshall that Helicobacter pylori causes peptic ulcers. Initially, the hypothesis that a microorganism could cause gastritis and gastric ulcers faced immense resistance. When the scientists that proposed the hypothesis themselves ingested H. pylori to induce gastritis in themselves, only then could they convince the wider world about their hypothesis. Such was the impact of the hypothesis was that Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005 for this discovery. 17 , 18

DISTINGUISHING THE MOST INFLUENTIAL HYPOTHESES

Influential hypotheses are those that have stood the test of time. An archetype of an influential hypothesis is that proposed by Edward Jenner in the eighteenth century that cowpox infection protects against smallpox. While this observation had been reported for nearly a century before this time, it had not been suitably tested and publicised until Jenner conducted his experiments on a young boy by demonstrating protection against smallpox after inoculation with cowpox. 19 These experiments were the basis for widespread smallpox immunization strategies worldwide in the 20th century which resulted in the elimination of smallpox as a human disease today. 20

Other influential hypotheses are those which have been read and cited widely. An example of this is the hygiene hypothesis proposing an inverse relationship between infections in early life and allergies or autoimmunity in adulthood. An analysis reported that this hypothesis had been cited more than 3,000 times on Scopus. 1

LESSONS LEARNED FROM HYPOTHESES AMIDST THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The COVID-19 pandemic devastated the world like no other in recent memory. During this period, various hypotheses emerged, understandably so considering the public health emergency situation with innumerable deaths and suffering for humanity. Within weeks of the first reports of COVID-19, aberrant immune system activation was identified as a key driver of organ dysfunction and mortality in this disease. 21 Consequently, numerous drugs that suppress the immune system or abrogate the activation of the immune system were hypothesized to have a role in COVID-19. 22 One of the earliest drugs hypothesized to have a benefit was hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was proposed to interfere with Toll-like receptor activation and consequently ameliorate the aberrant immune system activation leading to pathology in COVID-19. 22 The drug was also hypothesized to have a prophylactic role in preventing infection or disease severity in COVID-19. It was also touted as a wonder drug for the disease by many prominent international figures. However, later studies which were well-designed randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Subsequently, azithromycin 27 , 28 and ivermectin 29 were hypothesized as potential therapies for COVID-19, but were not supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. The role of vitamin D in preventing disease severity was also proposed, but has not been proven definitively until now. 30 , 31 On the other hand, randomized controlled trials identified the evidence supporting dexamethasone 32 and interleukin-6 pathway blockade with tocilizumab as effective therapies for COVID-19 in specific situations such as at the onset of hypoxia. 33 , 34 Clues towards the apparent effectiveness of various drugs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro but their ineffectiveness in vivo have recently been identified. Many of these drugs are weak, lipophilic bases and some others induce phospholipidosis which results in apparent in vitro effectiveness due to non-specific off-target effects that are not replicated inside living systems. 35 , 36

Another hypothesis proposed was the association of the routine policy of vaccination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) with lower deaths due to COVID-19. This hypothesis emerged in the middle of 2020 when COVID-19 was still taking foot in many parts of the world. 37 , 38 Subsequently, many countries which had lower deaths at that time point went on to have higher numbers of mortality, comparable to other areas of the world. Furthermore, the hypothesis that BCG vaccination reduced COVID-19 mortality was a classic example of ecological fallacy. Associations between population level events (ecological studies; in this case, BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality) cannot be directly extrapolated to the individual level. Furthermore, such associations cannot per se be attributed as causal in nature, and can only serve to generate hypotheses that need to be tested at the individual level. 39

IS TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW EFFICIENT FOR EVALUATION OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES?

Traditionally, publication after peer review has been considered the gold standard before any new idea finds acceptability amongst the scientific community. Getting a work (including a working or scientific hypothesis) reviewed by experts in the field before experiments are conducted to prove or disprove it helps to refine the idea further as well as improve the experiments planned to test the hypothesis. 40 A route towards this has been the emergence of journals dedicated to publishing hypotheses such as the Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 41 Another means of publishing hypotheses is through registered research protocols detailing the background, hypothesis, and methodology of a particular study. If such protocols are published after peer review, then the journal commits to publishing the completed study irrespective of whether the study hypothesis is proven or disproven. 42 In the post-pandemic world, online research methods such as online surveys powered via social media channels such as Twitter and Instagram might serve as critical tools to generate as well as to preliminarily test the appropriateness of hypotheses for further evaluation. 43 , 44

Some radical hypotheses might be difficult to publish after traditional peer review. These hypotheses might only be acceptable by the scientific community after they are tested in research studies. Preprints might be a way to disseminate such controversial and ground-breaking hypotheses. 45 However, scientists might prefer to keep their hypotheses confidential for the fear of plagiarism of ideas, avoiding online posting and publishing until they have tested the hypotheses.

SUGGESTIONS ON GENERATING AND PUBLISHING HYPOTHESES

Publication of hypotheses is important, however, a balance is required between scientific temper and controversy. Journal editors and reviewers might keep in mind these specific points, summarized in Table 2 and detailed hereafter, while judging the merit of hypotheses for publication. Keeping in mind the ethical principle of primum non nocere, a hypothesis should be published only if it is testable in a manner that is ethically appropriate. 46 Such hypotheses should be grounded in reality and lend themselves to further testing to either prove or disprove them. It must be considered that subsequent experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis have an equal chance of failing or succeeding, akin to tossing a coin. A pre-conceived belief that a hypothesis is unlikely to be proven correct should not form the basis of rejection of such a hypothesis for publication. In this context, hypotheses generated after a thorough literature search to identify knowledge gaps or based on concrete clinical observations on a considerable number of patients (as opposed to random observations on a few patients) are more likely to be acceptable for publication by peer-reviewed journals. Also, hypotheses should be considered for publication or rejection based on their implications for science at large rather than whether the subsequent experiments to test them end up with results in favour of or against the original hypothesis.

Hypotheses form an important part of the scientific literature. The COVID-19 pandemic has reiterated the importance and relevance of hypotheses for dealing with public health emergencies and highlighted the need for evidence-based and ethical hypotheses. A good hypothesis is testable in a relevant study design, backed by preliminary evidence, and has positive ethical and clinical implications. General medical journals might consider publishing hypotheses as a specific article type to enable more rapid advancement of science.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Data curation: Gasparyan AY, Misra DP, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Agarwal V, Kitas GD.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

Frequently Asked Questions

A  hypothesis  is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.

Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."

At a Glance

A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:

• Forming a question
• Performing background research
• Creating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Collecting data
• Analyzing the results
• Drawing conclusions
• Communicating the results

The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.

Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you  expect  to happen.

In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.

Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.

In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment  do not  support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."

In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

• Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
• Can your hypothesis be tested?
• Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the  journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

• Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
• Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
• Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
• After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.

In the scientific method ,  falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.

Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that  if  something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.

The Importance of Operational Definitions

A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.

Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.

For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.

These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.

Replicability

One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.

Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.

Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.

To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.

Hypothesis Checklist

• Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate the variables?
• Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?

The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:

• Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
• Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
• Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
• Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
• Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
• Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.

A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the  dependent variable  if you change the  independent variable .

The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

• "Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
• "Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."​
• "Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
• "Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

• "People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
• "Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

• "There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
• "There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
• "There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

• "People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
• "Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
• "Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not." 

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.

Descriptive Research Methods

Descriptive research such as  case studies ,  naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when  conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a  correlational study  can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.

Experimental Research Methods

Experimental methods  are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).

Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually  cause  another to change.

The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.

Some examples of how to write a hypothesis include:

• "Staying up late will lead to worse test performance the next day."
• "People who consume one apple each day will visit the doctor fewer times each year."
• "Breaking study sessions up into three 20-minute sessions will lead to better test results than a single 60-minute study session."

The four parts of a hypothesis are:

(1) The research question

(2) The independent variable (IV)

(3) The dependent variable (DV)

(4) The proposed relationship between the IV and DV

No, a hypothesis and a theory are not the same thing. A hypothesis is a testable prediction about a specific research question. A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation supported by an existing body of scientific research.

Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses .  R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607

Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:].  Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z

Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004

Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ?  PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies .  Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18

Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

1 Hypothesis Testing

Biology is a science, but what exactly is science? What does the study of biology share with other scientific disciplines?  Science  (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) can be defined as knowledge about the natural world.

Biologists study the living world by posing questions about it and seeking science-based responses. This approach is common to other sciences as well and is often referred to as the scientific method . The scientific process was used even in ancient times, but it was first documented by England’s Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626) ( Figure 1 ), who set up inductive methods for scientific inquiry. The scientific method is not exclusively used by biologists but can be applied to almost anything as a logical problem solving method.

The scientific process typically starts with an observation  (often a problem to be solved) that leads to a question.  Science is very good at answering questions having to do with observations about the natural world, but is very bad at answering questions having to do with purely moral questions, aesthetic questions, personal opinions, or what can be generally categorized as spiritual questions. Science has cannot investigate these areas because they are outside the realm of material phenomena, the phenomena of matter and energy, and cannot be observed and measured.

Let’s think about a simple problem that starts with an observation and apply the scientific method to solve the problem. Imagine that one morning when you wake up and flip a the switch to turn on your bedside lamp, the light won’t turn on. That is an observation that also describes a problem: the lights won’t turn on. Of course, you would next ask the question: “Why won’t the light turn on?”

A hypothesis  is a suggested explanation that can be tested. A hypothesis is NOT the question you are trying to answer – it is what you think the answer to the question will be and why .  Several hypotheses may be proposed as answers to one question. For example, one hypothesis about the question “Why won’t the light turn on?” is “The light won’t turn on because the bulb is burned out.” There are also other possible answers to the question, and therefore other hypotheses may be proposed. A second hypothesis is “The light won’t turn on because the lamp is unplugged” or “The light won’t turn on because the power is out.” A hypothesis should be based on credible background information. A hypothesis is NOT just a guess (not even an educated one), although it can be based on your prior experience (such as in the example where the light won’t turn on). In general, hypotheses in biology should be based on a credible, referenced source of information.

A hypothesis must be testable to ensure that it is valid. For example, a hypothesis that depends on what a dog thinks is not testable, because we can’t tell what a dog thinks. It should also be  falsifiable,  meaning that it can be disproven by experimental results. An example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is “Red is a better color than blue.” There is no experiment that might show this statement to be false. To test a hypothesis, a researcher will conduct one or more experiments designed to eliminate one or more of the hypotheses. This is important: a hypothesis can be disproven, or eliminated, but it can never be proven.  If an experiment fails to disprove a hypothesis, then that explanation (the hypothesis) is supported as the answer to the question. However, that doesn’t mean that later on, we won’t find a better explanation or design a better experiment that will disprove the first hypothesis and lead to a better one.

A variable is any part of the experiment that can vary or change during the experiment. Typically, an experiment only tests one variable and all the other conditions in the experiment are held constant.

• The variable that is being changed or tested is known as the  independent variable .
• The  dependent variable  is the thing (or things) that you are measuring as the outcome of your experiment.
• A  constant  is a condition that is the same between all of the tested groups.
• A confounding variable  is a condition that is not held constant that could affect the experimental results.

Let’s start with the first hypothesis given above for the light bulb experiment: the bulb is burned out. When testing this hypothesis, the independent variable (the thing that you are testing) would be changing the light bulb and the dependent variable is whether or not the light turns on.

• HINT: You should be able to put your identified independent and dependent variables into the phrase “dependent depends on independent”. If you say “whether or not the light turns on depends on changing the light bulb” this makes sense and describes this experiment. In contrast, if you say “changing the light bulb depends on whether or not the light turns on” it doesn’t make sense.

It would be important to hold all the other aspects of the environment constant, for example not messing with the lamp cord or trying to turn the lamp on using a different light switch. If the entire house had lost power during the experiment because a car hit the power pole, that would be a confounding variable.

You may have learned that a hypothesis can be phrased as an “If..then…” statement. Simple hypotheses can be phrased that way (but they must always also include a “because”), but more complicated hypotheses may require several sentences. It is also very easy to get confused by trying to put your hypothesis into this format. Don’t worry about phrasing hypotheses as “if…then” statements – that is almost never done in experiments outside a classroom.

The results  of your experiment are the data that you collect as the outcome.  In the light experiment, your results are either that the light turns on or the light doesn’t turn on. Based on your results, you can make a conclusion. Your conclusion  uses the results to answer your original question.

We can put the experiment with the light that won’t go in into the figure above:

• Observation: the light won’t turn on.
• Question: why won’t the light turn on?
• Hypothesis: the lightbulb is burned out.
• Prediction: if I change the lightbulb (independent variable), then the light will turn on (dependent variable).
• Experiment: change the lightbulb while leaving all other variables the same.
• Analyze the results: the light didn’t turn on.
• Conclusion: The lightbulb isn’t burned out. The results do not support the hypothesis, time to develop a new one!
• Hypothesis 2: the lamp is unplugged.
• Prediction 2: if I plug in the lamp, then the light will turn on.
• Experiment: plug in the lamp
• Analyze the results: the light turned on!
• Conclusion: The light wouldn’t turn on because the lamp was unplugged. The results support the hypothesis, it’s time to move on to the next experiment!

In practice, the scientific method is not as rigid and structured as it might at first appear. Sometimes an experiment leads to conclusions that favor a change in approach; often, an experiment brings entirely new scientific questions to the puzzle. Many times, science does not operate in a linear fashion; instead, scientists continually draw inferences and make generalizations, finding patterns as their research proceeds. Scientific reasoning is more complex than the scientific method alone suggests.

Control Groups

Another important aspect of designing an experiment is the presence of one or more control groups. A control group  allows you to make a comparison that is important for interpreting your results. Control groups are samples that help you to determine that differences between your experimental groups are due to your treatment rather than a different variable – they eliminate alternate explanations for your results (including experimental error and experimenter bias). They increase reliability, often through the comparison of control measurements and measurements of the experimental groups. Often, the control group is a sample that is not treated with the independent variable, but is otherwise treated the same way as your experimental sample. This type of control group is treated the same way as the experimental group except it does not get treated with the independent variable. Therefore, if the results of the experimental group differ from the control group, the difference must be due to the change of the independent, rather than some outside factor. It is common in complex experiments (such as those published in scientific journals) to have more control groups than experimental groups.

Question: Which fertilizer will produce the greatest number of tomatoes when applied to the plants?

Hypothesis : If I apply different brands of fertilizer to tomato plants, the most tomatoes will be produced from plants watered with Brand A because Brand A advertises that it produces twice as many tomatoes as other leading brands.

Experiment:  Purchase 10 tomato plants of the same type from the same nursery. Pick plants that are similar in size and age. Divide the plants into two groups of 5. Apply Brand A to the first group and Brand B to the second group according to the instructions on the packages. After 10 weeks, count the number of tomatoes on each plant.

Independent Variable:  Brand of fertilizer.

Dependent Variable : Number of tomatoes.

• The number of tomatoes produced depends on the brand of fertilizer applied to the plants.

Constants:  amount of water, type of soil, size of pot, amount of light, type of tomato plant, length of time plants were grown.

Confounding variables : any of the above that are not held constant, plant health, diseases present in the soil or plant before it was purchased.

Results:  Tomatoes fertilized with Brand A  produced an average of 20 tomatoes per plant, while tomatoes fertilized with Brand B produced an average of 10 tomatoes per plant.

You’d want to use Brand A next time you grow tomatoes, right? But what if I told you that plants grown without fertilizer produced an average of 30 tomatoes per plant! Now what will you use on your tomatoes?

Results including control group : Tomatoes which received no fertilizer produced more tomatoes than either brand of fertilizer.

Conclusion:  Although Brand A fertilizer produced more tomatoes than Brand B, neither fertilizer should be used because plants grown without fertilizer produced the most tomatoes!

More examples of control groups:

• You observe growth . Does this mean that your spinach is really contaminated? Consider an alternate explanation for growth: the swab, the water, or the plate is contaminated with bacteria. You could use a control group to determine which explanation is true. If you wet one of the swabs and wiped on a nutrient plate, do bacteria grow?
• You don’t observe growth.  Does this mean that your spinach is really safe? Consider an alternate explanation for no growth: Salmonella isn’t able to grow on the type of nutrient you used in your plates. You could use a control group to determine which explanation is true. If you wipe a known sample of Salmonella bacteria on the plate, do bacteria grow?
• You see a reduction in disease symptoms: you might expect a reduction in disease symptoms purely because the person knows they are taking a drug so they believe should be getting better. If the group treated with the real drug does not show more a reduction in disease symptoms than the placebo group, the drug doesn’t really work. The placebo group sets a baseline against which the experimental group (treated with the drug) can be compared.
• You don’t see a reduction in disease symptoms: your drug doesn’t work. You don’t need an additional control group for comparison.
• You would want a “placebo feeder”. This would be the same type of feeder, but with no food in it. Birds might visit a feeder just because they are interested in it; an empty feeder would give a baseline level for bird visits.
• You would want a control group where you knew the enzyme would function. This would be a tube where you did not change the pH. You need this control group so you know your enzyme is working: if you didn’t see a reaction in any of the tubes with the pH adjusted, you wouldn’t know if it was because the enzyme wasn’t working at all or because the enzyme just didn’t work at any of your tested pH values.
• You would also want a control group where you knew the enzyme would not function (no enzyme added). You need the negative control group so you can ensure that there is no reaction taking place in the absence of enzyme: if the reaction proceeds without the enzyme, your results are meaningless.

Text adapted from: OpenStax , Biology. OpenStax CNX. May 27, 2016  http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:RD6ERYiU@5/The-Process-of-Science .

MHCC Biology 112: Biology for Health Professions Copyright © 2019 by Lisa Bartee is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• 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.

1.2: Science- Reproducible, Testable, Tentative, Predictive, and Explanatory

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 152134

Learning Objectives

• Describe the differences between hypothesis and theory as scientific terms.
• Describe the difference between a theory and scientific law.
• Identify the components of the scientific method.

Although many have taken science classes throughout their course of studies, incorrect or misleading ideas about some of the most important and basic principles in science are still commonplace. Most students have heard of hypotheses , theories , and laws , but what do these terms really mean? Before you read this section, consider what you have learned about these terms previously, and what they mean to you. When reading, notice if any of the text contradicts what you previously thought. What do you read that supports what you thought?

What is a Fact?

A fact is a basic statement established by experiment or observation. All facts are true under the specific conditions of the observation.

What is a Hypothesis?

One of the most common terms used in science classes is a " hypothesis ". The word can have many different definitions, dependent on the context in which it is being used:

• An educated guess: a scientific hypothesis provides a suggested solution based on evidence.
• Prediction: if you have ever carried out a science experiment, you probably made this type of hypothesis, in which you predicted the outcome of your experiment.
• Tentative or proposed explanation: hypotheses can be suggestions about why something is observed. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, a scientist must be able to test the explanation to see if it works, and if it is able to correctly predict what will happen in a situation. For example, "if my hypothesis is correct, I should see _____ result when I perform _____ test."

A hypothesis is tentative; it can be easily changed.

What is a Theory?

The United States National Academy of Sciences describes a theory as:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses," but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter (stating that everything is made of atoms) or the germ theory of disease (which states that many diseases are caused by germs). Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

Note some key features of theories that are important to understand from this description:

• Theories are explanations of natural phenomenon. They aren't predictions (although we may use theories to make predictions). They are explanations of why something is observed.
• Theories aren't likely to change. They have a lot of support and are able to explain many observations satisfactorily. Theories can, indeed, be facts. Theories can change in some instances, but it is a long and difficult process. In order for a theory to change, there must be many observations or evidence that the theory cannot explain.
• Theories are not guesses. The phrase "just a theory" has no room in science. To be a scientific theory carries a lot of weight—it is not just one person's idea about something

Theories aren't likely to change.

What is a Law?

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually, scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions, frequently written as an equation. Scientific theories are overarching explanations of how nature works, and why it exhibits certain characteristics. As a comparison, theories explain why we observe what we do, and laws describe what happens.

For example, around the year 1800, Jacques Charles and other scientists were working with gases to, among other reasons, improve the design of the hot air balloon. These scientists found, after numerous tests, that certain patterns existed in their observations of gas behavior. If the temperature of the gas increased, the volume of the gas increased. This is known as a natural law. A law is a relationship that exists between variables in a group of data. Laws describe the patterns we see in large amounts of data, but do not describe why the patterns exist.

Laws vs Theories

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. Remember, theories are explanations; laws are patterns seen in large amounts of data, frequently written as an equation. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.

Video \(\PageIndex{1}\) What is the difference between scientific law and theory?

The Scientific Method

Scientists search for answers to questions and solutions to problems by using a procedure called the scientific method . This procedure consists of making observations, formulating hypotheses, and designing experiments, which in turn lead to additional observations, hypotheses, and experiments in repeated cycles (Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)).

• Step 1: Make observations.

Observations can be qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative observations describe properties or occurrences in ways that do not rely on numbers. Examples of qualitative observations include the following: "the outside air temperature is cooler during the winter season," "table salt is a crystalline solid," "sulfur crystals are yellow," and "dissolving a penny in dilute nitric acid forms a blue solution and a brown gas." Quantitative observations are measurements, which by definition consist of both a number and a unit. Examples of quantitative observations include the following: "the melting point of crystalline sulfur is 115.21° Celsius," and "35.9 grams of table salt—the chemical name of which is sodium chloride—dissolve in 100 grams of water at 20° Celsius." For the question of the dinosaurs’ extinction, the initial observation was quantitative: iridium concentrations in sediments dating to 66 million years ago were 20–160 times higher than normal.

• Step 2: Formulate a hypothesis.

After deciding to learn more about an observation or a set of observations, scientists generally begin an investigation by forming a hypothesis, a tentative explanation for the observation(s). The hypothesis may not be correct, but it puts the scientist’s understanding of the system being studied into a form that can be tested. For example, the observation that we experience alternating periods of light and darkness which correspond to observed movements of the sun, moon, clouds, and shadows, is consistent with either of two hypotheses:

• Earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours, alternately exposing one side to the sun.
• The sun revolves around Earth every 24 hours.

Suitable experiments can be designed to choose between these two alternatives. In the case of disappearance of the dinosaurs, the hypothesis was that the impact of a large extraterrestrial object caused their extinction. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), this hypothesis does not lend itself to direct testing by any obvious experiment, but scientists can collect additional data that either supports or refutes it.

Step 3: Design and perform experiments.

After a hypothesis has been formed, scientists conduct experiments to test its validity. Experiments are systematic observations or measurements, preferably made under controlled conditions—that is, under conditions in which a single variable changes.

• Step 4: Accept or modify the hypothesis.

A properly designed and executed experiment enables a scientist to determine whether the original hypothesis is valid. In the case of validity, the scientist can proceed to step 5. In other cases, experiments may demonstrate that the hypothesis is incorrect or that it must be modified, thus requiring further experimentation.

• Step 5: Development of a law and/or theory.

More experimental data are then collected and analyzed, at which point a scientist may begin to think that the results are sufficiently reproducible (i.e., dependable) to merit being summarized in a law—a verbal or mathematical description of a phenomenon that allows for general predictions. A law simply states what happens; it does not address the question of why.

One example of a law, the law of definite proportions (discovered by the French scientist Joseph Proust [1754–1826]), states that a chemical substance always contains the same proportions of elements by mass. Thus, sodium chloride (table salt) always contains the same proportion by mass of sodium to chlorine—in this case, 39.34% sodium and 60.66% chlorine by mass. Sucrose (table sugar) is always 42.11% carbon, 6.48% hydrogen, and 51.41% oxygen by mass.

Whereas a law states only what happens, a theory attempts to explain why nature behaves as it does. Laws are unlikely to change greatly over time, unless a major experimental error is discovered. A theory, in contrast, is incomplete and imperfect; it evolves with time to explain new facts as they are discovered.

Because scientists can enter the cycle shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) at any point, the actual application of the scientific method to different topics can take many different forms. For example, a scientist may start with a hypothesis formed by reading about work done by others in the field, rather than by making direct observations.

Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Classify each statement as a law, theory, experiment, hypothesis, or observation.

• Ice always floats on liquid water.
• Birds evolved from dinosaurs.
• Hot air is less dense than cold air, probably because the components of hot air are moving more rapidly.
• When 10 g of ice was added to 100 mL of water at 25°C, the temperature of the water decreased to 15.5°C after the ice melted.
• The ingredients of Ivory soap were analyzed to see whether it really is 99.44% pure, as advertised.
• This is a general statement of a relationship between the properties of liquid and solid water, so it is a law.
• This is a possible explanation for the origin of birds, so it is a hypothesis.
• This is a statement that tries to explain the relationship between the temperature and the density of air based on fundamental principles, so it is a theory.
• The temperature is measured before and after a change is made in a system, so these are observations.
• This is an analysis designed to test a hypothesis (in this case, the manufacturer’s claim of purity), so it is an experiment.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Classify each statement as a law, theory, experiment, hypothesis, qualitative observation, or quantitative observation.

• Measured amounts of acid were added to a Rolaids tablet to see whether it really “consumes 47 times its weight in excess stomach acid.”
• Heat always flows from hot objects to cooler ones, not in the opposite direction.
• The universe was formed by a massive explosion that propelled matter into a vacuum.
• Michael Jordan is the greatest pure shooter ever to play professional basketball.
• Limestone is relatively insoluble in water, but dissolves readily in dilute acid with the evolution of a gas.
• A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested by further investigation.
• A theory is a well-supported explanation of observations.
• A scientific law is a statement that summarizes the relationship between variables.
• An experiment is a controlled method of testing a hypothesis.
• Step 3: Test the hypothesis through experimentation.

Contributors and Attributions

Marisa Alviar-Agnew  ( Sacramento City College )

Henry Agnew (UC Davis)

Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples

Here's a look at the foundation of doing science — the scientific method.

The scientific method

Hypothesis, theory and law, a brief history of science, additional resources, bibliography.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe. 

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia," which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary . True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley . Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement) that is designed to support or contradict a scientific theory .

"As a field biologist, my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science. "But what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question. So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not."

The steps of the scientific method go something like this, according to Highline College :

• Make an observation or observations.
• Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
• Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
• Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
• Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

• The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University . Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
• Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning . Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning uses observations to infer an explanation for those observations.
• An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change), according to the University of California, Santa Barbara .
• An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against, according to Britannica .

The process of generating and testing a hypothesis forms the backbone of the scientific method. When an idea has been confirmed over many experiments, it can be called a scientific theory. While a theory provides an explanation for a phenomenon, a scientific law provides a description of a phenomenon, according to The University of Waikato . One example would be the law of conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics that says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 

A law describes an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. "In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"

Laws are generally considered to be without exception, though some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies. For instance, Newton's laws of motion describe everything we've observed in the macroscopic world, but they break down at the subatomic level.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, scientists must conduct rigorous testing, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is "just a theory" confuses the scientific definition of "theory" with the layperson's definition. To most people a theory is a hunch. In science, a theory is the framework for observations and facts, Tanner told Live Science.

The earliest evidence of science can be found as far back as records exist. Early tablets contain numerals and information about the solar system , which were derived by using careful observation, prediction and testing of those predictions. Science became decidedly more "scientific" over time, however.

1200s: Robert Grosseteste developed the framework for the proper methods of modern scientific experimentation, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. His works included the principle that an inquiry must be based on measurable evidence that is confirmed through testing.

1400s: Leonardo da Vinci began his notebooks in pursuit of evidence that the human body is microcosmic. The artist, scientist and mathematician also gathered information about optics and hydrodynamics.

1500s: Nicolaus Copernicus advanced the understanding of the solar system with his discovery of heliocentrism. This is a model in which Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun, which is the center of the solar system.

1600s: Johannes Kepler built upon those observations with his laws of planetary motion. Galileo Galilei improved on a new invention, the telescope, and used it to study the sun and planets. The 1600s also saw advancements in the study of physics as Isaac Newton developed his laws of motion.

1700s: Benjamin Franklin discovered that lightning is electrical. He also contributed to the study of oceanography and meteorology. The understanding of chemistry also evolved during this century as Antoine Lavoisier, dubbed the father of modern chemistry , developed the law of conservation of mass.

1800s: Milestones included Alessandro Volta's discoveries regarding electrochemical series, which led to the invention of the battery. John Dalton also introduced atomic theory, which stated that all matter is composed of atoms that combine to form molecules. The basis of modern study of genetics advanced as Gregor Mendel unveiled his laws of inheritance. Later in the century, Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovered X-rays , while George Ohm's law provided the basis for understanding how to harness electrical charges.

1900s: The discoveries of Albert Einstein , who is best known for his theory of relativity, dominated the beginning of the 20th century. Einstein's theory of relativity is actually two separate theories. His special theory of relativity, which he outlined in a 1905 paper, " The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies ," concluded that time must change according to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer. His second theory of general relativity, which he published as " The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity ," advanced the idea that matter causes space to curve.

In 1952, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine , which reduced the incidence of polio in the United States by nearly 90%, according to Britannica . The following year, James D. Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA , which is a double helix formed by base pairs attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

2000s: The 21st century saw the first draft of the human genome completed, leading to a greater understanding of DNA. This advanced the study of genetics, its role in human biology and its use as a predictor of diseases and other disorders, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

• This video from City University of New York delves into the basics of what defines science.
• Learn about what makes science science in this book excerpt from Washington State University .
• This resource from the University of Michigan — Flint explains how to design your own scientific study.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Scientia. 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientia

University of California, Berkeley, "Understanding Science: An Overview." 2022. ​​ https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01  

Highline College, "Scientific method." July 12, 2015. https://people.highline.edu/iglozman/classes/astronotes/scimeth.htm  

North Carolina State University, "Science Scripts." https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/bio183de/Black/science/science_scripts.html  

University of California, Santa Barbara. "What is an Independent variable?" October 31,2017. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6045  

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Control group." May 14, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/science/control-group  

The University of Waikato, "Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws." https://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml  

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Robert Grosseteste. May 3, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grosseteste/  

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Jonas Salk." October 21, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/ biography /Jonas-Salk

National Human Genome Research Institute, "​Phosphate Backbone." https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Phosphate-Backbone  

National Human Genome Research Institute, "What is the Human Genome Project?" https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/What  

‌ Live Science contributor Ashley Hamer updated this article on Jan. 16, 2022.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Part of the San Andreas fault may be gearing up for an earthquake

Antarctica is covered in volcanoes, could they erupt?

2,000-foot-wide 'potentially hazardous' asteroid has just made its closest approach to Earth — and you can see it with a telescope

Most Popular

• 2 No, you didn't see a solar flare during the total eclipse — but you may have seen something just as special
• 3 Largest 3D map of our universe could 'turn cosmology upside down'
• 4 Mass die-off half a billion years ago caused by shifting tectonic plates, ancient rocks reveal
• 5 Prehistoric henge accidentally discovered in England in search for Anglo-Saxon hermit
• 2 Cancer patients can now be 'matched' to best treatment with DNA and lab-dish experiments
• 3 Space photo of the week: NASA spots enormous pink 'flames' during total solar eclipse. What are they?
• 4 Ancient Indigenous lineage of Blackfoot Confederacy goes back 18,000 years to last ice age, DNA reveals

2.4 Developing a Hypothesis

Learning objectives.

• Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
• Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
• Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis it is imporant to distinguish betwee a theory and a hypothesis. A  theory  is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition. He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.

A  hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observation before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this  if-then  relationship. “ If   drive theory is correct,  then  cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter  and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this  question  is an interesting one  on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) [1] . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the  number  of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how  easily  they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method  (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). A researcher begins with a set of phenomena and either constructs a theory to explain or interpret them or chooses an existing theory to work with. He or she then makes a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researcher then conducts an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, he or she reevaluates the theory in light of the new results and revises it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researcher can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As  Figure 2.2  shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

Figure 2.2 Hypothetico-Deductive Method Combined With the General Model of Scientific Research in Psychology Together they form a model of theoretically motivated research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) [2] . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans (Zajonc & Sales, 1966) [3] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be  logical. As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use  deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use  inductive reasoning  which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be  positive.  That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that really it does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

Key Takeaways

• A theory is broad in nature and explains larger bodies of data. A hypothesis is more specific and makes a prediction about the outcome of a particular study.
• Working with theories is not “icing on the cake.” It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.
• Like other scientists, psychologists use the hypothetico-deductive method. They construct theories to explain or interpret phenomena (or work with existing theories), derive hypotheses from their theories, test the hypotheses, and then reevaluate the theories in light of the new results.
• Practice: Find a recent empirical research report in a professional journal. Read the introduction and highlight in different colors descriptions of theories and hypotheses.
• Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202. ↵
• Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92. ↵
• Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168. ↵

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

• Understanding Science 101

Science works with ideas that can be tested using evidence from the natural world.

Science works with testable ideas

If an explanation is equally compatible with all possible observations, then it is not testable and hence, not within the reach of science. This is frequently the case with ideas about supernatural entities. For example, consider the idea that an all-powerful supernatural being controls our actions. Is there anything we could do to test that idea? No. Because this supernatural being is all-powerful, anything we observe could be chalked up to the whim of that being. Or not. The point is that we can’t use the tools of science to gather any information about whether or not this being exists — so such an idea is outside the realm of science.

A SCIENCE PROTOTYPE: RUTHERFORD AND THE ATOM

Rutherford’s story continues as we examine each item on the Science Checklist. To find out how this investigation measures up against the rest of the checklist, read on.

• Science in action
• Take a sidetrip
• Teaching resources

Even ideas about things that occurred long ago, that happen in distant galaxies, or that are too small for us to observe directly can be testable. For some examples of testing ideas about the very old, very distant, and very tiny, explore these stories:

• Asteroids and dinosaurs
• The structure of DNA: Cooperation and competition

Find out how scientific ideas are actually tested. Visit  Testing scientific ideas  in our  How science works  section.

• Learn strategies for building lessons and activities around the Science Checklist: Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12 Grades 13-16
• Get  graphics and pdfs of the Science Checklist  to use in your classroom.

Science aims to explain and understand

Science relies on evidence

Subscribe to our newsletter

• The science flowchart
• Science stories
• Grade-level teaching guides
• Teaching resource database
• Journaling tool
• Misconceptions

• 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.

Hypothesis Testing

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 31289

CO-6: Apply basic concepts of probability, random variation, and commonly used statistical probability distributions.

Learning Objectives

LO 6.26: Outline the logic and process of hypothesis testing.

LO 6.27: Explain what the p-value is and how it is used to draw conclusions.

Video: Hypothesis Testing (8:43)

Introduction

We are in the middle of the part of the course that has to do with inference for one variable.

So far, we talked about point estimation and learned how interval estimation enhances it by quantifying the magnitude of the estimation error (with a certain level of confidence) in the form of the margin of error. The result is the confidence interval — an interval that, with a certain confidence, we believe captures the unknown parameter.

We are now moving to the other kind of inference, hypothesis testing . We say that hypothesis testing is “the other kind” because, unlike the inferential methods we presented so far, where the goal was estimating the unknown parameter, the idea, logic and goal of hypothesis testing are quite different.

In the first two parts of this section we will discuss the idea behind hypothesis testing, explain how it works, and introduce new terminology that emerges in this form of inference. The final two parts will be more specific and will discuss hypothesis testing for the population proportion ( p ) and the population mean ( μ, mu).

If this is your first statistics course, you will need to spend considerable time on this topic as there are many new ideas. Many students find this process and its logic difficult to understand in the beginning.

In this section, we will use the hypothesis test for a population proportion to motivate our understanding of the process. We will conduct these tests manually. For all future hypothesis test procedures, including problems involving means, we will use software to obtain the results and focus on interpreting them in the context of our scenario.

General Idea and Logic of Hypothesis Testing

The purpose of this section is to gradually build your understanding about how statistical hypothesis testing works. We start by explaining the general logic behind the process of hypothesis testing. Once we are confident that you understand this logic, we will add some more details and terminology.

To start our discussion about the idea behind statistical hypothesis testing, consider the following example:

A case of suspected cheating on an exam is brought in front of the disciplinary committee at a certain university.

There are two opposing claims in this case:

• The student’s claim: I did not cheat on the exam.
• The instructor’s claim: The student did cheat on the exam.

Adhering to the principle “innocent until proven guilty,” the committee asks the instructor for evidence to support his claim. The instructor explains that the exam had two versions, and shows the committee members that on three separate exam questions, the student used in his solution numbers that were given in the other version of the exam.

The committee members all agree that it would be extremely unlikely to get evidence like that if the student’s claim of not cheating had been true. In other words, the committee members all agree that the instructor brought forward strong enough evidence to reject the student’s claim, and conclude that the student did cheat on the exam.

What does this example have to do with statistics?

While it is true that this story seems unrelated to statistics, it captures all the elements of hypothesis testing and the logic behind it. Before you read on to understand why, it would be useful to read the example again. Please do so now.

Statistical hypothesis testing is defined as:

• Assessing evidence provided by the data against the null claim (the claim which is to be assumed true unless enough evidence exists to reject it).

Here is how the process of statistical hypothesis testing works:

• We have two claims about what is going on in the population. Let’s call them claim 1 (this will be the null claim or hypothesis) and claim 2 (this will be the alternative) . Much like the story above, where the student’s claim is challenged by the instructor’s claim, the null claim 1 is challenged by the alternative claim 2. (For us, these claims are usually about the value of population parameter(s) or about the existence or nonexistence of a relationship between two variables in the population).
• We choose a sample, collect relevant data and summarize them (this is similar to the instructor collecting evidence from the student’s exam). For statistical tests, this step will also involve checking any conditions or assumptions.
• We figure out how likely it is to observe data like the data we obtained, if claim 1 is true. (Note that the wording “how likely …” implies that this step requires some kind of probability calculation). In the story, the committee members assessed how likely it is to observe evidence such as the instructor provided, had the student’s claim of not cheating been true.
• If, after assuming claim 1 is true, we find that it would be extremely unlikely to observe data as strong as ours or stronger in favor of claim 2, then we have strong evidence against claim 1, and we reject it in favor of claim 2. Later we will see this corresponds to a small p-value.
• If, after assuming claim 1 is true, we find that observing data as strong as ours or stronger in favor of claim 2 is NOT VERY UNLIKELY , then we do not have enough evidence against claim 1, and therefore we cannot reject it in favor of claim 2. Later we will see this corresponds to a p-value which is not small.

In our story, the committee decided that it would be extremely unlikely to find the evidence that the instructor provided had the student’s claim of not cheating been true. In other words, the members felt that it is extremely unlikely that it is just a coincidence (random chance) that the student used the numbers from the other version of the exam on three separate problems. The committee members therefore decided to reject the student’s claim and concluded that the student had, indeed, cheated on the exam. (Wouldn’t you conclude the same?)

Hopefully this example helped you understand the logic behind hypothesis testing.

Interactive Applet: Reasoning of a Statistical Test

To strengthen your understanding of the process of hypothesis testing and the logic behind it, let’s look at three statistical examples.

A recent study estimated that 20% of all college students in the United States smoke. The head of Health Services at Goodheart University (GU) suspects that the proportion of smokers may be lower at GU. In hopes of confirming her claim, the head of Health Services chooses a random sample of 400 Goodheart students, and finds that 70 of them are smokers.

Let’s analyze this example using the 4 steps outlined above:

• claim 1: The proportion of smokers at Goodheart is 0.20.
• claim 2: The proportion of smokers at Goodheart is less than 0.20.

Claim 1 basically says “nothing special goes on at Goodheart University; the proportion of smokers there is no different from the proportion in the entire country.” This claim is challenged by the head of Health Services, who suspects that the proportion of smokers at Goodheart is lower.

• Choosing a sample and collecting data: A sample of n = 400 was chosen, and summarizing the data revealed that the sample proportion of smokers is p -hat = 70/400 = 0.175.While it is true that 0.175 is less than 0.20, it is not clear whether this is strong enough evidence against claim 1. We must account for sampling variation.
• Assessment of evidence: In order to assess whether the data provide strong enough evidence against claim 1, we need to ask ourselves: How surprising is it to get a sample proportion as low as p -hat = 0.175 (or lower), assuming claim 1 is true? In other words, we need to find how likely it is that in a random sample of size n = 400 taken from a population where the proportion of smokers is p = 0.20 we’ll get a sample proportion as low as p -hat = 0.175 (or lower).It turns out that the probability that we’ll get a sample proportion as low as p -hat = 0.175 (or lower) in such a sample is roughly 0.106 (do not worry about how this was calculated at this point – however, if you think about it hopefully you can see that the key is the sampling distribution of p -hat).
• Conclusion: Well, we found that if claim 1 were true there is a probability of 0.106 of observing data like that observed or more extreme. Now you have to decide …Do you think that a probability of 0.106 makes our data rare enough (surprising enough) under claim 1 so that the fact that we did observe it is enough evidence to reject claim 1? Or do you feel that a probability of 0.106 means that data like we observed are not very likely when claim 1 is true, but they are not unlikely enough to conclude that getting such data is sufficient evidence to reject claim 1. Basically, this is your decision. However, it would be nice to have some kind of guideline about what is generally considered surprising enough.

A certain prescription allergy medicine is supposed to contain an average of 245 parts per million (ppm) of a certain chemical. If the concentration is higher than 245 ppm, the drug will likely cause unpleasant side effects, and if the concentration is below 245 ppm, the drug may be ineffective. The manufacturer wants to check whether the mean concentration in a large shipment is the required 245 ppm or not. To this end, a random sample of 64 portions from the large shipment is tested, and it is found that the sample mean concentration is 250 ppm with a sample standard deviation of 12 ppm.

• Claim 1: The mean concentration in the shipment is the required 245 ppm.
• Claim 2: The mean concentration in the shipment is not the required 245 ppm.

Note that again, claim 1 basically says: “There is nothing unusual about this shipment, the mean concentration is the required 245 ppm.” This claim is challenged by the manufacturer, who wants to check whether that is, indeed, the case or not.

• Choosing a sample and collecting data: A sample of n = 64 portions is chosen and after summarizing the data it is found that the sample mean concentration is x-bar = 250 and the sample standard deviation is s = 12.Is the fact that x-bar = 250 is different from 245 strong enough evidence to reject claim 1 and conclude that the mean concentration in the whole shipment is not the required 245? In other words, do the data provide strong enough evidence to reject claim 1?
• Assessing the evidence: In order to assess whether the data provide strong enough evidence against claim 1, we need to ask ourselves the following question: If the mean concentration in the whole shipment were really the required 245 ppm (i.e., if claim 1 were true), how surprising would it be to observe a sample of 64 portions where the sample mean concentration is off by 5 ppm or more (as we did)? It turns out that it would be extremely unlikely to get such a result if the mean concentration were really the required 245. There is only a probability of 0.0007 (i.e., 7 in 10,000) of that happening. (Do not worry about how this was calculated at this point, but again, the key will be the sampling distribution.)
• Making conclusions: Here, it is pretty clear that a sample like the one we observed or more extreme is VERY rare (or extremely unlikely) if the mean concentration in the shipment were really the required 245 ppm. The fact that we did observe such a sample therefore provides strong evidence against claim 1, so we reject it and conclude with very little doubt that the mean concentration in the shipment is not the required 245 ppm.

Do you think that you’re getting it? Let’s make sure, and look at another example.

Is there a relationship between gender and combined scores (Math + Verbal) on the SAT exam?

Following a report on the College Board website, which showed that in 2003, males scored generally higher than females on the SAT exam, an educational researcher wanted to check whether this was also the case in her school district. The researcher chose random samples of 150 males and 150 females from her school district, collected data on their SAT performance and found the following:

Again, let’s see how the process of hypothesis testing works for this example:

• Claim 1: Performance on the SAT is not related to gender (males and females score the same).
• Claim 2: Performance on the SAT is related to gender – males score higher.

Note that again, claim 1 basically says: “There is nothing going on between the variables SAT and gender.” Claim 2 represents what the researcher wants to check, or suspects might actually be the case.

• Choosing a sample and collecting data: Data were collected and summarized as given above. Is the fact that the sample mean score of males (1,025) is higher than the sample mean score of females (1,010) by 15 points strong enough information to reject claim 1 and conclude that in this researcher’s school district, males score higher on the SAT than females?
• Assessment of evidence: In order to assess whether the data provide strong enough evidence against claim 1, we need to ask ourselves: If SAT scores are in fact not related to gender (claim 1 is true), how likely is it to get data like the data we observed, in which the difference between the males’ average and females’ average score is as high as 15 points or higher? It turns out that the probability of observing such a sample result if SAT score is not related to gender is approximately 0.29 (Again, do not worry about how this was calculated at this point).
• Conclusion: Here, we have an example where observing a sample like the one we observed or more extreme is definitely not surprising (roughly 30% chance) if claim 1 were true (i.e., if indeed there is no difference in SAT scores between males and females). We therefore conclude that our data does not provide enough evidence for rejecting claim 1.
• “The data provide enough evidence to reject claim 1 and accept claim 2”; or
• “The data do not provide enough evidence to reject claim 1.”

In particular, note that in the second type of conclusion we did not say: “ I accept claim 1 ,” but only “ I don’t have enough evidence to reject claim 1 .” We will come back to this issue later, but this is a good place to make you aware of this subtle difference.

Hopefully by now, you understand the logic behind the statistical hypothesis testing process. Here is a summary:

Learn by Doing: Logic of Hypothesis Testing

Did I Get This?: Logic of Hypothesis Testing

Steps in Hypothesis Testing

Video: Steps in Hypothesis Testing (16:02)

Now that we understand the general idea of how statistical hypothesis testing works, let’s go back to each of the steps and delve slightly deeper, getting more details and learning some terminology.

Hypothesis Testing Step 1: State the Hypotheses

In all three examples, our aim is to decide between two opposing points of view, Claim 1 and Claim 2. In hypothesis testing, Claim 1 is called the null hypothesis (denoted “ Ho “), and Claim 2 plays the role of the alternative hypothesis (denoted “ Ha “). As we saw in the three examples, the null hypothesis suggests nothing special is going on; in other words, there is no change from the status quo, no difference from the traditional state of affairs, no relationship. In contrast, the alternative hypothesis disagrees with this, stating that something is going on, or there is a change from the status quo, or there is a difference from the traditional state of affairs. The alternative hypothesis, Ha, usually represents what we want to check or what we suspect is really going on.

Let’s go back to our three examples and apply the new notation:

In example 1:

• Ho: The proportion of smokers at GU is 0.20.
• Ha: The proportion of smokers at GU is less than 0.20.

In example 2:

• Ho: The mean concentration in the shipment is the required 245 ppm.
• Ha: The mean concentration in the shipment is not the required 245 ppm.

In example 3:

• Ho: Performance on the SAT is not related to gender (males and females score the same).
• Ha: Performance on the SAT is related to gender – males score higher.

Learn by Doing: State the Hypotheses

Did I Get This?: State the Hypotheses

Hypothesis Testing Step 2: Collect Data, Check Conditions and Summarize Data

This step is pretty obvious. This is what inference is all about. You look at sampled data in order to draw conclusions about the entire population. In the case of hypothesis testing, based on the data, you draw conclusions about whether or not there is enough evidence to reject Ho.

There is, however, one detail that we would like to add here. In this step we collect data and summarize it. Go back and look at the second step in our three examples. Note that in order to summarize the data we used simple sample statistics such as the sample proportion ( p -hat), sample mean (x-bar) and the sample standard deviation (s).

In practice, you go a step further and use these sample statistics to summarize the data with what’s called a test statistic . We are not going to go into any details right now, but we will discuss test statistics when we go through the specific tests.

This step will also involve checking any conditions or assumptions required to use the test.

Hypothesis Testing Step 3: Assess the Evidence

As we saw, this is the step where we calculate how likely is it to get data like that observed (or more extreme) when Ho is true. In a sense, this is the heart of the process, since we draw our conclusions based on this probability.

• If this probability is very small (see example 2), then that means that it would be very surprising to get data like that observed (or more extreme) if Ho were true. The fact that we did observe such data is therefore evidence against Ho, and we should reject it.
• On the other hand, if this probability is not very small (see example 3) this means that observing data like that observed (or more extreme) is not very surprising if Ho were true. The fact that we observed such data does not provide evidence against Ho. This crucial probability, therefore, has a special name. It is called the p-value of the test.

In our three examples, the p-values were given to you (and you were reassured that you didn’t need to worry about how these were derived yet):

• Example 1: p-value = 0.106
• Example 2: p-value = 0.0007
• Example 3: p-value = 0.29

Obviously, the smaller the p-value, the more surprising it is to get data like ours (or more extreme) when Ho is true, and therefore, the stronger the evidence the data provide against Ho.

Looking at the three p-values of our three examples, we see that the data that we observed in example 2 provide the strongest evidence against the null hypothesis, followed by example 1, while the data in example 3 provides the least evidence against Ho.

• Right now we will not go into specific details about p-value calculations, but just mention that since the p-value is the probability of getting data like those observed (or more extreme) when Ho is true, it would make sense that the calculation of the p-value will be based on the data summary, which, as we mentioned, is the test statistic. Indeed, this is the case. In practice, we will mostly use software to provide the p-value for us.

Hypothesis Testing Step 4: Making Conclusions

Since our statistical conclusion is based on how small the p-value is, or in other words, how surprising our data are when Ho is true, it would be nice to have some kind of guideline or cutoff that will help determine how small the p-value must be, or how “rare” (unlikely) our data must be when Ho is true, for us to conclude that we have enough evidence to reject Ho.

This cutoff exists, and because it is so important, it has a special name. It is called the significance level of the test and is usually denoted by the Greek letter α (alpha). The most commonly used significance level is α (alpha) = 0.05 (or 5%). This means that:

• if the p-value < α (alpha) (usually 0.05), then the data we obtained is considered to be “rare (or surprising) enough” under the assumption that Ho is true, and we say that the data provide statistically significant evidence against Ho, so we reject Ho and thus accept Ha.
• if the p-value > α (alpha)(usually 0.05), then our data are not considered to be “surprising enough” under the assumption that Ho is true, and we say that our data do not provide enough evidence to reject Ho (or, equivalently, that the data do not provide enough evidence to accept Ha).

Now that we have a cutoff to use, here are the appropriate conclusions for each of our examples based upon the p-values we were given.

In Example 1:

• Using our cutoff of 0.05, we fail to reject Ho.
• Conclusion : There IS NOT enough evidence that the proportion of smokers at GU is less than 0.20
• Still we should consider: Does the evidence seen in the data provide any practical evidence towards our alternative hypothesis?

In Example 2:

• Using our cutoff of 0.05, we reject Ho.
• Conclusion : There IS enough evidence that the mean concentration in the shipment is not the required 245 ppm.

In Example 3:

• Conclusion : There IS NOT enough evidence that males score higher on average than females on the SAT.

Notice that all of the above conclusions are written in terms of the alternative hypothesis and are given in the context of the situation. In no situation have we claimed the null hypothesis is true. Be very careful of this and other issues discussed in the following comments.

• Although the significance level provides a good guideline for drawing our conclusions, it should not be treated as an incontrovertible truth. There is a lot of room for personal interpretation. What if your p-value is 0.052? You might want to stick to the rules and say “0.052 > 0.05 and therefore I don’t have enough evidence to reject Ho”, but you might decide that 0.052 is small enough for you to believe that Ho should be rejected. It should be noted that scientific journals do consider 0.05 to be the cutoff point for which any p-value below the cutoff indicates enough evidence against Ho, and any p-value above it, or even equal to it , indicates there is not enough evidence against Ho. Although a p-value between 0.05 and 0.10 is often reported as marginally statistically significant.
• It is important to draw your conclusions in context . It is never enough to say: “p-value = …, and therefore I have enough evidence to reject Ho at the 0.05 significance level.” You should always word your conclusion in terms of the data. Although we will use the terminology of “rejecting Ho” or “failing to reject Ho” – this is mostly due to the fact that we are instructing you in these concepts. In practice, this language is rarely used. We also suggest writing your conclusion in terms of the alternative hypothesis.Is there or is there not enough evidence that the alternative hypothesis is true?
• Let’s go back to the issue of the nature of the two types of conclusions that I can make.
• Either I reject Ho (when the p-value is smaller than the significance level)
• or I cannot reject Ho (when the p-value is larger than the significance level).

As we mentioned earlier, note that the second conclusion does not imply that I accept Ho, but just that I don’t have enough evidence to reject it. Saying (by mistake) “I don’t have enough evidence to reject Ho so I accept it” indicates that the data provide evidence that Ho is true, which is not necessarily the case . Consider the following slightly artificial yet effective example:

An employer claims to subscribe to an “equal opportunity” policy, not hiring men any more often than women for managerial positions. Is this credible? You’re not sure, so you want to test the following two hypotheses:

• Ho: The proportion of male managers hired is 0.5
• Ha: The proportion of male managers hired is more than 0.5

Data: You choose at random three of the new managers who were hired in the last 5 years and find that all 3 are men.

Assessing Evidence: If the proportion of male managers hired is really 0.5 (Ho is true), then the probability that the random selection of three managers will yield three males is therefore 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125. This is the p-value (using the multiplication rule for independent events).

Conclusion: Using 0.05 as the significance level, you conclude that since the p-value = 0.125 > 0.05, the fact that the three randomly selected managers were all males is not enough evidence to reject the employer’s claim of subscribing to an equal opportunity policy (Ho).

However, the data (all three selected are males) definitely does NOT provide evidence to accept the employer’s claim (Ho).

Learn By Doing: Using p-values

Did I Get This?: Using p-values

Comment about wording: Another common wording in scientific journals is:

• “The results are statistically significant” – when the p-value < α (alpha).
• “The results are not statistically significant” – when the p-value > α (alpha).

Often you will see significance levels reported with additional description to indicate the degree of statistical significance. A general guideline (although not required in our course) is:

• If 0.01 ≤ p-value < 0.05, then the results are (statistically) significant .
• If 0.001 ≤ p-value < 0.01, then the results are highly statistically significant .
• If p-value < 0.001, then the results are very highly statistically significant .
• If p-value > 0.05, then the results are not statistically significant (NS).
• If 0.05 ≤ p-value < 0.10, then the results are marginally statistically significant .

Let’s summarize

We learned quite a lot about hypothesis testing. We learned the logic behind it, what the key elements are, and what types of conclusions we can and cannot draw in hypothesis testing. Here is a quick recap:

Video: Hypothesis Testing Overview (2:20)

Here are a few more activities if you need some additional practice.

Did I Get This?: Hypothesis Testing Overview

• Notice that the p-value is an example of a conditional probability . We calculate the probability of obtaining results like those of our data (or more extreme) GIVEN the null hypothesis is true. We could write P(Obtaining results like ours or more extreme | Ho is True).
• We could write P(Obtaining a test statistic as or more extreme than ours | Ho is True).
• In this case we are asking “Assuming the null hypothesis is true, how rare is it to observe something as or more extreme than what I have found in my data?”
• If after assuming the null hypothesis is true, what we have found in our data is extremely rare (small p-value), this provides evidence to reject our assumption that Ho is true in favor of Ha.
• The p-value can also be thought of as the probability, assuming the null hypothesis is true, that the result we have seen is solely due to random error (or random chance). We have already seen that statistics from samples collected from a population vary. There is random error or random chance involved when we sample from populations.

In this setting, if the p-value is very small, this implies, assuming the null hypothesis is true, that it is extremely unlikely that the results we have obtained would have happened due to random error alone, and thus our assumption (Ho) is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis (Ha).

• It is EXTREMELY important that you find a definition of the p-value which makes sense to you. New students often need to contemplate this idea repeatedly through a variety of examples and explanations before becoming comfortable with this idea. It is one of the two most important concepts in statistics (the other being confidence intervals).
• We infer that the alternative hypothesis is true ONLY by rejecting the null hypothesis.
• A statistically significant result is one that has a very low probability of occurring if the null hypothesis is true.
• Results which are statistically significant may or may not have practical significance and vice versa.

Error and Power

LO 6.28: Define a Type I and Type II error in general and in the context of specific scenarios.

LO 6.29: Explain the concept of the power of a statistical test including the relationship between power, sample size, and effect size.

Video: Errors and Power (12:03)

Type I and Type II Errors in Hypothesis Tests

We have not yet discussed the fact that we are not guaranteed to make the correct decision by this process of hypothesis testing. Maybe you are beginning to see that there is always some level of uncertainty in statistics.

Let’s think about what we know already and define the possible errors we can make in hypothesis testing. When we conduct a hypothesis test, we choose one of two possible conclusions based upon our data.

If the p-value is smaller than your pre-specified significance level (α, alpha), you reject the null hypothesis and either

• You have made the correct decision since the null hypothesis is false
• You have made an error ( Type I ) and rejected Ho when in fact Ho is true (your data happened to be a RARE EVENT under Ho)

If the p-value is greater than (or equal to) your chosen significance level (α, alpha), you fail to reject the null hypothesis and either

• You have made the correct decision since the null hypothesis is true
• You have made an error ( Type II ) and failed to reject Ho when in fact Ho is false (the alternative hypothesis, Ha, is true)

The following summarizes the four possible results which can be obtained from a hypothesis test. Notice the rows represent the decision made in the hypothesis test and the columns represent the (usually unknown) truth in reality.

Although the truth is unknown in practice – or we would not be conducting the test – we know it must be the case that either the null hypothesis is true or the null hypothesis is false. It is also the case that either decision we make in a hypothesis test can result in an incorrect conclusion!

A TYPE I Error occurs when we Reject Ho when, in fact, Ho is True. In this case, we mistakenly reject a true null hypothesis.

• P(TYPE I Error) = P(Reject Ho | Ho is True) = α = alpha = Significance Level

A TYPE II Error occurs when we fail to Reject Ho when, in fact, Ho is False. In this case we fail to reject a false null hypothesis.

P(TYPE II Error) = P(Fail to Reject Ho | Ho is False) = β = beta

When our significance level is 5%, we are saying that we will allow ourselves to make a Type I error less than 5% of the time. In the long run, if we repeat the process, 5% of the time we will find a p-value < 0.05 when in fact the null hypothesis was true.

In this case, our data represent a rare occurrence which is unlikely to happen but is still possible. For example, suppose we toss a coin 10 times and obtain 10 heads, this is unlikely for a fair coin but not impossible. We might conclude the coin is unfair when in fact we simply saw a very rare event for this fair coin.

Our testing procedure CONTROLS for the Type I error when we set a pre-determined value for the significance level.

Notice that these probabilities are conditional probabilities. This is one more reason why conditional probability is an important concept in statistics.

Unfortunately, calculating the probability of a Type II error requires us to know the truth about the population. In practice we can only calculate this probability using a series of “what if” calculations which depend upon the type of problem.

Comment: As you initially read through the examples below, focus on the broad concepts instead of the small details. It is not important to understand how to calculate these values yourself at this point.

• Try to understand the pictures we present. Which pictures represent an assumed null hypothesis and which represent an alternative?
• It may be useful to come back to this page (and the activities here) after you have reviewed the rest of the section on hypothesis testing and have worked a few problems yourself.

Interactive Applet: Statistical Significance

Here are two examples of using an older version of this applet. It looks slightly different but the same settings and options are available in the version above.

In both cases we will consider IQ scores.

Our null hypothesis is that the true mean is 100. Assume the standard deviation is 16 and we will specify a significance level of 5%.

In this example we will specify that the true mean is indeed 100 so that the null hypothesis is true. Most of the time (95%), when we generate a sample, we should fail to reject the null hypothesis since the null hypothesis is indeed true.

Here is one sample that results in a correct decision:

In the sample above, we obtain an x-bar of 105, which is drawn on the distribution which assumes μ (mu) = 100 (the null hypothesis is true). Notice the sample is shown as blue dots along the x-axis and the shaded region shows for which values of x-bar we would reject the null hypothesis. In other words, we would reject Ho whenever the x-bar falls in the shaded region.

Enter the same values and generate samples until you obtain a Type I error (you falsely reject the null hypothesis). You should see something like this:

If you were to generate 100 samples, you should have around 5% where you rejected Ho. These would be samples which would result in a Type I error.

The previous example illustrates a correct decision and a Type I error when the null hypothesis is true. The next example illustrates a correct decision and Type II error when the null hypothesis is false. In this case, we must specify the true population mean.

Let’s suppose we are sampling from an honors program and that the true mean IQ for this population is 110. We do not know the probability of a Type II error without more detailed calculations.

Let’s start with a sample which results in a correct decision.

In the sample above, we obtain an x-bar of 111, which is drawn on the distribution which assumes μ (mu) = 100 (the null hypothesis is true).

Enter the same values and generate samples until you obtain a Type II error (you fail to reject the null hypothesis). You should see something like this:

You should notice that in this case (when Ho is false), it is easier to obtain an incorrect decision (a Type II error) than it was in the case where Ho is true. If you generate 100 samples, you can approximate the probability of a Type II error.

We can find the probability of a Type II error by visualizing both the assumed distribution and the true distribution together. The image below is adapted from an applet we will use when we discuss the power of a statistical test.

There is a 37.4% chance that, in the long run, we will make a Type II error and fail to reject the null hypothesis when in fact the true mean IQ is 110 in the population from which we sample our 10 individuals.

Can you visualize what will happen if the true population mean is really 115 or 108? When will the Type II error increase? When will it decrease? We will look at this idea again when we discuss the concept of power in hypothesis tests.

• It is important to note that there is a trade-off between the probability of a Type I and a Type II error. If we decrease the probability of one of these errors, the probability of the other will increase! The practical result of this is that if we require stronger evidence to reject the null hypothesis (smaller significance level = probability of a Type I error), we will increase the chance that we will be unable to reject the null hypothesis when in fact Ho is false (increases the probability of a Type II error).
• When α (alpha) = 0.05 we obtained a Type II error probability of 0.374 = β = beta

• When α (alpha) = 0.01 (smaller than before) we obtain a Type II error probability of 0.644 = β = beta (larger than before)

• As the blue line in the picture moves farther right, the significance level (α, alpha) is decreasing and the Type II error probability is increasing.
• As the blue line in the picture moves farther left, the significance level (α, alpha) is increasing and the Type II error probability is decreasing

Let’s return to our very first example and define these two errors in context.

• Ho = The student’s claim: I did not cheat on the exam.
• Ha = The instructor’s claim: The student did cheat on the exam.

Adhering to the principle “innocent until proven guilty,” the committee asks the instructor for evidence to support his claim.

There are four possible outcomes of this process. There are two possible correct decisions:

• The student did cheat on the exam and the instructor brings enough evidence to reject Ho and conclude the student did cheat on the exam. This is a CORRECT decision!
• The student did not cheat on the exam and the instructor fails to provide enough evidence that the student did cheat on the exam. This is a CORRECT decision!

Both the correct decisions and the possible errors are fairly easy to understand but with the errors, you must be careful to identify and define the two types correctly.

TYPE I Error: Reject Ho when Ho is True

• The student did not cheat on the exam but the instructor brings enough evidence to reject Ho and conclude the student cheated on the exam. This is a Type I Error.

TYPE II Error: Fail to Reject Ho when Ho is False

• The student did cheat on the exam but the instructor fails to provide enough evidence that the student cheated on the exam. This is a Type II Error.

In most situations, including this one, it is more “acceptable” to have a Type II error than a Type I error. Although allowing a student who cheats to go unpunished might be considered a very bad problem, punishing a student for something he or she did not do is usually considered to be a more severe error. This is one reason we control for our Type I error in the process of hypothesis testing.

Did I Get This?: Type I and Type II Errors (in context)

• The probabilities of Type I and Type II errors are closely related to the concepts of sensitivity and specificity that we discussed previously. Consider the following hypotheses:

Ho: The individual does not have diabetes (status quo, nothing special happening)

Ha: The individual does have diabetes (something is going on here)

In this setting:

When someone tests positive for diabetes we would reject the null hypothesis and conclude the person has diabetes (we may or may not be correct!).

When someone tests negative for diabetes we would fail to reject the null hypothesis so that we fail to conclude the person has diabetes (we may or may not be correct!)

Let’s take it one step further:

Sensitivity = P(Test + | Have Disease) which in this setting equals P(Reject Ho | Ho is False) = 1 – P(Fail to Reject Ho | Ho is False) = 1 – β = 1 – beta

Specificity = P(Test – | No Disease) which in this setting equals P(Fail to Reject Ho | Ho is True) = 1 – P(Reject Ho | Ho is True) = 1 – α = 1 – alpha

Notice that sensitivity and specificity relate to the probability of making a correct decision whereas α (alpha) and β (beta) relate to the probability of making an incorrect decision.

Usually α (alpha) = 0.05 so that the specificity listed above is 0.95 or 95%.

Next, we will see that the sensitivity listed above is the power of the hypothesis test!

Reasons for a Type I Error in Practice

Assuming that you have obtained a quality sample:

• The reason for a Type I error is random chance.
• When a Type I error occurs, our observed data represented a rare event which indicated evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis even though the null hypothesis was actually true.

Reasons for a Type II Error in Practice

Again, assuming that you have obtained a quality sample, now we have a few possibilities depending upon the true difference that exists.

• The sample size is too small to detect an important difference. This is the worst case, you should have obtained a larger sample. In this situation, you may notice that the effect seen in the sample seems PRACTICALLY significant and yet the p-value is not small enough to reject the null hypothesis.
• The sample size is reasonable for the important difference but the true difference (which might be somewhat meaningful or interesting) is smaller than your test was capable of detecting. This is tolerable as you were not interested in being able to detect this difference when you began your study. In this situation, you may notice that the effect seen in the sample seems to have some potential for practical significance.
• The sample size is more than adequate, the difference that was not detected is meaningless in practice. This is not a problem at all and is in effect a “correct decision” since the difference you did not detect would have no practical meaning.
• Note: We will discuss the idea of practical significance later in more detail.

Power of a Hypothesis Test

It is often the case that we truly wish to prove the alternative hypothesis. It is reasonable that we would be interested in the probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis. In other words, the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis, when in fact the null hypothesis is false. This can also be thought of as the probability of being able to detect a (pre-specified) difference of interest to the researcher.

Let’s begin with a realistic example of how power can be described in a study.

In a clinical trial to study two medications for weight loss, we have an 80% chance to detect a difference in the weight loss between the two medications of 10 pounds. In other words, the power of the hypothesis test we will conduct is 80%.

In other words, if one medication comes from a population with an average weight loss of 25 pounds and the other comes from a population with an average weight loss of 15 pounds, we will have an 80% chance to detect that difference using the sample we have in our trial.

If we were to repeat this trial many times, 80% of the time we will be able to reject the null hypothesis (that there is no difference between the medications) and 20% of the time we will fail to reject the null hypothesis (and make a Type II error!).

The difference of 10 pounds in the previous example, is often called the effect size . The measure of the effect differs depending on the particular test you are conducting but is always some measure related to the true effect in the population. In this example, it is the difference between two population means.

Recall the definition of a Type II error:

Notice that P(Reject Ho | Ho is False) = 1 – P(Fail to Reject Ho | Ho is False) = 1 – β = 1- beta.

The POWER of a hypothesis test is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is false . This can also be stated as the probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis .

POWER = P(Reject Ho | Ho is False) = 1 – β = 1 – beta

Power is the test’s ability to correctly reject the null hypothesis. A test with high power has a good chance of being able to detect the difference of interest to us, if it exists .

As we mentioned on the bottom of the previous page, this can be thought of as the sensitivity of the hypothesis test if you imagine Ho = No disease and Ha = Disease.

Factors Affecting the Power of a Hypothesis Test

The power of a hypothesis test is affected by numerous quantities (similar to the margin of error in a confidence interval).

Assume that the null hypothesis is false for a given hypothesis test. All else being equal, we have the following:

• Larger samples result in a greater chance to reject the null hypothesis which means an increase in the power of the hypothesis test.
• If the effect size is larger, it will become easier for us to detect. This results in a greater chance to reject the null hypothesis which means an increase in the power of the hypothesis test. The effect size varies for each test and is usually closely related to the difference between the hypothesized value and the true value of the parameter under study.
• From the relationship between the probability of a Type I and a Type II error (as α (alpha) decreases, β (beta) increases), we can see that as α (alpha) decreases, Power = 1 – β = 1 – beta also decreases.
• There are other mathematical ways to change the power of a hypothesis test, such as changing the population standard deviation; however, these are not quantities that we can usually control so we will not discuss them here.

In practice, we specify a significance level and a desired power to detect a difference which will have practical meaning to us and this determines the sample size required for the experiment or study.

For most grants involving statistical analysis, power calculations must be completed to illustrate that the study will have a reasonable chance to detect an important effect. Otherwise, the money spent on the study could be wasted. The goal is usually to have a power close to 80%.

For example, if there is only a 5% chance to detect an important difference between two treatments in a clinical trial, this would result in a waste of time, effort, and money on the study since, when the alternative hypothesis is true, the chance a treatment effect can be found is very small.

• In order to calculate the power of a hypothesis test, we must specify the “truth.” As we mentioned previously when discussing Type II errors, in practice we can only calculate this probability using a series of “what if” calculations which depend upon the type of problem.

The following activity involves working with an interactive applet to study power more carefully.

Learn by Doing: Power of Hypothesis Tests

The following reading is an excellent discussion about Type I and Type II errors.

(Optional) Outside Reading: A Good Discussion of Power (≈ 2500 words)

We will not be asking you to perform power calculations manually. You may be asked to use online calculators and applets. Most statistical software packages offer some ability to complete power calculations. There are also many online calculators for power and sample size on the internet, for example, Russ Lenth’s power and sample-size page .

Proportions (Introduction & Step 1)

CO-4: Distinguish among different measurement scales, choose the appropriate descriptive and inferential statistical methods based on these distinctions, and interpret the results.

LO 4.33: In a given context, distinguish between situations involving a population proportion and a population mean and specify the correct null and alternative hypothesis for the scenario.

LO 4.34: Carry out a complete hypothesis test for a population proportion by hand.

Video: Proportions (Introduction & Step 1) (7:18)

Now that we understand the process of hypothesis testing and the logic behind it, we are ready to start learning about specific statistical tests (also known as significance tests).

The first test we are going to learn is the test about the population proportion (p).

This test is widely known as the “z-test for the population proportion (p).”

We will understand later where the “z-test” part is coming from.

This will be the only type of problem you will complete entirely “by-hand” in this course. Our goal is to use this example to give you the tools you need to understand how this process works. After working a few problems, you should review the earlier material again. You will likely need to review the terminology and concepts a few times before you fully understand the process.

In reality, you will often be conducting more complex statistical tests and allowing software to provide the p-value. In these settings it will be important to know what test to apply for a given situation and to be able to explain the results in context.

Review: Types of Variables

When we conduct a test about a population proportion, we are working with a categorical variable. Later in the course, after we have learned a variety of hypothesis tests, we will need to be able to identify which test is appropriate for which situation. Identifying the variable as categorical or quantitative is an important component of choosing an appropriate hypothesis test.

Learn by Doing: Review Types of Variables

One Sample Z-Test for a Population Proportion

In this part of our discussion on hypothesis testing, we will go into details that we did not go into before. More specifically, we will use this test to introduce the idea of a test statistic , and details about how p-values are calculated .

Let’s start by introducing the three examples, which will be the leading examples in our discussion. Each example is followed by a figure illustrating the information provided, as well as the question of interest.

A machine is known to produce 20% defective products, and is therefore sent for repair. After the machine is repaired, 400 products produced by the machine are chosen at random and 64 of them are found to be defective. Do the data provide enough evidence that the proportion of defective products produced by the machine (p) has been reduced as a result of the repair?

The following figure displays the information, as well as the question of interest:

The question of interest helps us formulate the null and alternative hypotheses in terms of p, the proportion of defective products produced by the machine following the repair:

• Ho: p = 0.20 (No change; the repair did not help).
• Ha: p < 0.20 (The repair was effective at reducing the proportion of defective parts).

There are rumors that students at a certain liberal arts college are more inclined to use drugs than U.S. college students in general. Suppose that in a simple random sample of 100 students from the college, 19 admitted to marijuana use. Do the data provide enough evidence to conclude that the proportion of marijuana users among the students in the college (p) is higher than the national proportion, which is 0.157? (This number is reported by the Harvard School of Public Health.)

Again, the following figure displays the information as well as the question of interest:

As before, we can formulate the null and alternative hypotheses in terms of p, the proportion of students in the college who use marijuana:

• Ho: p = 0.157 (same as among all college students in the country).
• Ha: p > 0.157 (higher than the national figure).

Polls on certain topics are conducted routinely in order to monitor changes in the public’s opinions over time. One such topic is the death penalty. In 2003 a poll estimated that 64% of U.S. adults support the death penalty for a person convicted of murder. In a more recent poll, 675 out of 1,000 U.S. adults chosen at random were in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers. Do the results of this poll provide evidence that the proportion of U.S. adults who support the death penalty for convicted murderers (p) changed between 2003 and the later poll?

Here is a figure that displays the information, as well as the question of interest:

Again, we can formulate the null and alternative hypotheses in term of p, the proportion of U.S. adults who support the death penalty for convicted murderers.

• Ho: p = 0.64 (No change from 2003).
• Ha: p ≠ 0.64 (Some change since 2003).

Learn by Doing: Proportions (Overview)

Did I Get This?: Proportions ( Overview )

Recall that there are basically 4 steps in the process of hypothesis testing:

• STEP 1: State the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses, Ho and Ha.
• STEP 2: Obtain a random sample, collect relevant data, and check whether the data meet the conditions under which the test can be used . If the conditions are met, summarize the data using a test statistic.
• STEP 3: Find the p-value of the test.
• STEP 4: Based on the p-value, decide whether or not the results are statistically significant and draw your conclusions in context.
• Note: In practice, we should always consider the practical significance of the results as well as the statistical significance.

We are now going to go through these steps as they apply to the hypothesis testing for the population proportion p. It should be noted that even though the details will be specific to this particular test, some of the ideas that we will add apply to hypothesis testing in general.

Step 1. Stating the Hypotheses

Here again are the three set of hypotheses that are being tested in each of our three examples:

Has the proportion of defective products been reduced as a result of the repair?

Is the proportion of marijuana users in the college higher than the national figure?

Did the proportion of U.S. adults who support the death penalty change between 2003 and a later poll?

The null hypothesis always takes the form:

• Ho: p = some value

and the alternative hypothesis takes one of the following three forms:

• Ha: p < that value (like in example 1) or
• Ha: p > that value (like in example 2) or
• Ha: p ≠ that value (like in example 3).

Note that it was quite clear from the context which form of the alternative hypothesis would be appropriate. The value that is specified in the null hypothesis is called the null value , and is generally denoted by p 0 . We can say, therefore, that in general the null hypothesis about the population proportion (p) would take the form:

• Ho: p = p 0

We write Ho: p = p 0 to say that we are making the hypothesis that the population proportion has the value of p 0 . In other words, p is the unknown population proportion and p 0 is the number we think p might be for the given situation.

The alternative hypothesis takes one of the following three forms (depending on the context):

Ha: p < p 0 (one-sided)

Ha: p > p 0 (one-sided)

Ha: p ≠ p 0 (two-sided)

The first two possible forms of the alternatives (where the = sign in Ho is challenged by < or >) are called one-sided alternatives , and the third form of alternative (where the = sign in Ho is challenged by ≠) is called a two-sided alternative. To understand the intuition behind these names let’s go back to our examples.

Example 3 (death penalty) is a case where we have a two-sided alternative:

In this case, in order to reject Ho and accept Ha we will need to get a sample proportion of death penalty supporters which is very different from 0.64 in either direction, either much larger or much smaller than 0.64.

In example 2 (marijuana use) we have a one-sided alternative:

Here, in order to reject Ho and accept Ha we will need to get a sample proportion of marijuana users which is much higher than 0.157.

Similarly, in example 1 (defective products), where we are testing:

in order to reject Ho and accept Ha, we will need to get a sample proportion of defective products which is much smaller than 0.20.

Learn by Doing: State Hypotheses (Proportions)

Did I Get This?: State Hypotheses (Proportions)

Proportions (Step 2)

Video: Proportions (Step 2) (12:38)

Step 2. Collect Data, Check Conditions, and Summarize Data

After the hypotheses have been stated, the next step is to obtain a sample (on which the inference will be based), collect relevant data , and summarize them.

It is extremely important that our sample is representative of the population about which we want to draw conclusions. This is ensured when the sample is chosen at random. Beyond the practical issue of ensuring representativeness, choosing a random sample has theoretical importance that we will mention later.

In the case of hypothesis testing for the population proportion (p), we will collect data on the relevant categorical variable from the individuals in the sample and start by calculating the sample proportion p-hat (the natural quantity to calculate when the parameter of interest is p).

Let’s go back to our three examples and add this step to our figures.

As we mentioned earlier without going into details, when we summarize the data in hypothesis testing, we go a step beyond calculating the sample statistic and summarize the data with a test statistic . Every test has a test statistic, which to some degree captures the essence of the test. In fact, the p-value, which so far we have looked upon as “the king” (in the sense that everything is determined by it), is actually determined by (or derived from) the test statistic. We will now introduce the test statistic.

The test statistic is a measure of how far the sample proportion p-hat is from the null value p 0 , the value that the null hypothesis claims is the value of p. In other words, since p-hat is what the data estimates p to be, the test statistic can be viewed as a measure of the “distance” between what the data tells us about p and what the null hypothesis claims p to be.

Let’s use our examples to understand this:

The parameter of interest is p, the proportion of defective products following the repair.

The data estimate p to be p-hat = 0.16

The null hypothesis claims that p = 0.20

The data are therefore 0.04 (or 4 percentage points) below the null hypothesis value.

It is hard to evaluate whether this difference of 4% in defective products is enough evidence to say that the repair was effective at reducing the proportion of defective products, but clearly, the larger the difference, the more evidence it is against the null hypothesis. So if, for example, our sample proportion of defective products had been, say, 0.10 instead of 0.16, then I think you would all agree that cutting the proportion of defective products in half (from 20% to 10%) would be extremely strong evidence that the repair was effective at reducing the proportion of defective products.

The parameter of interest is p, the proportion of students in a college who use marijuana.

The data estimate p to be p-hat = 0.19

The null hypothesis claims that p = 0.157

The data are therefore 0.033 (or 3.3. percentage points) above the null hypothesis value.

The parameter of interest is p, the proportion of U.S. adults who support the death penalty for convicted murderers.

The data estimate p to be p-hat = 0.675

The null hypothesis claims that p = 0.64

There is a difference of 0.035 (or 3.5. percentage points) between the data and the null hypothesis value.

The problem with looking only at the difference between the sample proportion, p-hat, and the null value, p 0 is that we have not taken into account the variability of our estimator p-hat which, as we know from our study of sampling distributions, depends on the sample size.

For this reason, the test statistic cannot simply be the difference between p-hat and p 0 , but must be some form of that formula that accounts for the sample size. In other words, we need to somehow standardize the difference so that comparison between different situations will be possible. We are very close to revealing the test statistic, but before we construct it, let’s be reminded of the following two facts from probability:

Fact 1: When we take a random sample of size n from a population with population proportion p, then

Fact 2: The z-score of any normal value (a value that comes from a normal distribution) is calculated by finding the difference between the value and the mean and then dividing that difference by the standard deviation (of the normal distribution associated with the value). The z-score represents how many standard deviations below or above the mean the value is.

Thus, our test statistic should be a measure of how far the sample proportion p-hat is from the null value p 0 relative to the variation of p-hat (as measured by the standard error of p-hat).

Recall that the standard error is the standard deviation of the sampling distribution for a given statistic. For p-hat, we know the following:

To find the p-value, we will need to determine how surprising our value is assuming the null hypothesis is true. We already have the tools needed for this process from our study of sampling distributions as represented in the table above.

If we assume the null hypothesis is true, we can specify that the center of the distribution of all possible values of p-hat from samples of size 400 would be 0.20 (our null value).

We can calculate the standard error, assuming p = 0.20 as

\(\sqrt{\dfrac{p_{0}\left(1-p_{0}\right)}{n}}=\sqrt{\dfrac{0.2(1-0.2)}{400}}=0.02\)

The following picture represents the sampling distribution of all possible values of p-hat of samples of size 400, assuming the true proportion p is 0.20 and our other requirements for the sampling distribution to be normal are met (we will review these during the next step).

In order to calculate probabilities for the picture above, we would need to find the z-score associated with our result.

This z-score is the test statistic ! In this example, the numerator of our z-score is the difference between p-hat (0.16) and null value (0.20) which we found earlier to be -0.04. The denominator of our z-score is the standard error calculated above (0.02) and thus quickly we find the z-score, our test statistic, to be -2.

The sample proportion based upon this data is 2 standard errors below the null value.

Hopefully you now understand more about the reasons we need probability in statistics!!

Now we will formalize the definition and look at our remaining examples before moving on to the next step, which will be to determine if a normal distribution applies and calculate the p-value.

Test Statistic for Hypothesis Tests for One Proportion is:

\(z=\dfrac{\hat{p}-p_{0}}{\sqrt{\dfrac{p_{0}\left(1-p_{0}\right)}{n}}}\)

It represents the difference between the sample proportion and the null value, measured in standard deviations (standard error of p-hat).

The picture above is a representation of the sampling distribution of p-hat assuming p = p 0 . In other words, this is a model of how p-hat behaves if we are drawing random samples from a population for which Ho is true.

Notice the center of the sampling distribution is at p 0 , which is the hypothesized proportion given in the null hypothesis (Ho: p = p 0 .) We could also mark the axis in standard error units,

\(\sqrt{\dfrac{p_{0}\left(1-p_{0}\right)}{n}}\)

For example, if our null hypothesis claims that the proportion of U.S. adults supporting the death penalty is 0.64, then the sampling distribution is drawn as if the null is true. We draw a normal distribution centered at 0.64 (p 0 ) with a standard error dependent on sample size,

\(\sqrt{\dfrac{0.64(1-0.64)}{n}}\).

Important Comment:

• Note that under the assumption that Ho is true (and if the conditions for the sampling distribution to be normal are satisfied) the test statistic follows a N(0,1) (standard normal) distribution. Another way to say the same thing which is quite common is: “The null distribution of the test statistic is N(0,1).”

By “null distribution,” we mean the distribution under the assumption that Ho is true. As we’ll see and stress again later, the null distribution of the test statistic is what the calculation of the p-value is based on.

Let’s go back to our remaining two examples and find the test statistic in each case:

Since the null hypothesis is Ho: p = 0.157, the standardized (z) score of p-hat = 0.19 is

\(z=\dfrac{0.19-0.157}{\sqrt{\dfrac{0.157(1-0.157)}{100}}} \approx 0.91\)

This is the value of the test statistic for this example.

We interpret this to mean that, assuming that Ho is true, the sample proportion p-hat = 0.19 is 0.91 standard errors above the null value (0.157).

Since the null hypothesis is Ho: p = 0.64, the standardized (z) score of p-hat = 0.675 is

\(z=\dfrac{0.675-0.64}{\sqrt{\dfrac{0.64(1-0.64)}{1000}}} \approx 2.31\)

We interpret this to mean that, assuming that Ho is true, the sample proportion p-hat = 0.675 is 2.31 standard errors above the null value (0.64).

Learn by Doing: Proportions (Step 2)

Comments about the Test Statistic:

• We mentioned earlier that to some degree, the test statistic captures the essence of the test. In this case, the test statistic measures the difference between p-hat and p 0 in standard errors. This is exactly what this test is about. Get data, and look at the discrepancy between what the data estimates p to be (represented by p-hat) and what Ho claims about p (represented by p 0 ).
• You can think about this test statistic as a measure of evidence in the data against Ho. The larger the test statistic, the “further the data are from Ho” and therefore the more evidence the data provide against Ho.

Learn by Doing: Proportions (Step 2) Understanding the Test Statistic

Did I Get This?: Proportions (Step 2)

• It should now be clear why this test is commonly known as the z-test for the population proportion . The name comes from the fact that it is based on a test statistic that is a z-score.
• Recall fact 1 that we used for constructing the z-test statistic. Here is part of it again:

When we take a random sample of size n from a population with population proportion p 0 , the possible values of the sample proportion p-hat ( when certain conditions are met ) have approximately a normal distribution with a mean of p 0 … and a standard deviation of

This result provides the theoretical justification for constructing the test statistic the way we did, and therefore the assumptions under which this result holds (in bold, above) are the conditions that our data need to satisfy so that we can use this test. These two conditions are:

i. The sample has to be random.

ii. The conditions under which the sampling distribution of p-hat is normal are met. In other words:

• Here we will pause to say more about condition (i.) above, the need for a random sample. In the Probability Unit we discussed sampling plans based on probability (such as a simple random sample, cluster, or stratified sampling) that produce a non-biased sample, which can be safely used in order to make inferences about a population. We noted in the Probability Unit that, in practice, other (non-random) sampling techniques are sometimes used when random sampling is not feasible. It is important though, when these techniques are used, to be aware of the type of bias that they introduce, and thus the limitations of the conclusions that can be drawn from them. For our purpose here, we will focus on one such practice, the situation in which a sample is not really chosen randomly, but in the context of the categorical variable that is being studied, the sample is regarded as random. For example, say that you are interested in the proportion of students at a certain college who suffer from seasonal allergies. For that purpose, the students in a large engineering class could be considered as a random sample, since there is nothing about being in an engineering class that makes you more or less likely to suffer from seasonal allergies. Technically, the engineering class is a convenience sample, but it is treated as a random sample in the context of this categorical variable. On the other hand, if you are interested in the proportion of students in the college who have math anxiety, then the class of engineering students clearly could not possibly be viewed as a random sample, since engineering students probably have a much lower incidence of math anxiety than the college population overall.

Learn by Doing: Proportions (Step 2) Valid or Invalid Sampling?

Let’s check the conditions in our three examples.

i. The 400 products were chosen at random.

ii. n = 400, p 0 = 0.2 and therefore:

\(n p_{0}=400(0.2)=80 \geq 10\)

\(n\left(1-p_{0}\right)=400(1-0.2)=320 \geq 10\)

i. The 100 students were chosen at random.

ii. n = 100, p 0 = 0.157 and therefore:

\begin{gathered} n p_{0}=100(0.157)=15.7 \geq 10 \\ n\left(1-p_{0}\right)=100(1-0.157)=84.3 \geq 10 \end{gathered}

i. The 1000 adults were chosen at random.

ii. n = 1000, p 0 = 0.64 and therefore:

\begin{gathered} n p_{0}=1000(0.64)=640 \geq 10 \\ n\left(1-p_{0}\right)=1000(1-0.64)=360 \geq 10 \end{gathered}

Learn by Doing: Proportions (Step 2) Verify Conditions

Checking that our data satisfy the conditions under which the test can be reliably used is a very important part of the hypothesis testing process. Be sure to consider this for every hypothesis test you conduct in this course and certainly in practice.

The Four Steps in Hypothesis Testing

With respect to the z-test, the population proportion that we are currently discussing we have:

Step 1: Completed

Step 2: Completed

Step 3: This is what we will work on next.

Proportions (Step 3)

Video: Proportions (Step 3) (14:46)

Calculators and Tables

Step 3. Finding the P-value of the Test

So far we’ve talked about the p-value at the intuitive level: understanding what it is (or what it measures) and how we use it to draw conclusions about the statistical significance of our results. We will now go more deeply into how the p-value is calculated.

It should be mentioned that eventually we will rely on technology to calculate the p-value for us (as well as the test statistic), but in order to make intelligent use of the output, it is important to first understand the details, and only then let the computer do the calculations for us. Again, our goal is to use this simple example to give you the tools you need to understand the process entirely. Let’s start.

Recall that so far we have said that the p-value is the probability of obtaining data like those observed assuming that Ho is true. Like the test statistic, the p-value is, therefore, a measure of the evidence against Ho. In the case of the test statistic, the larger it is in magnitude (positive or negative), the further p-hat is from p 0 , the more evidence we have against Ho. In the case of the p-value , it is the opposite; the smaller it is, the more unlikely it is to get data like those observed when Ho is true, the more evidence it is against Ho . One can actually draw conclusions in hypothesis testing just using the test statistic, and as we’ll see the p-value is, in a sense, just another way of looking at the test statistic. The reason that we actually take the extra step in this course and derive the p-value from the test statistic is that even though in this case (the test about the population proportion) and some other tests, the value of the test statistic has a very clear and intuitive interpretation, there are some tests where its value is not as easy to interpret. On the other hand, the p-value keeps its intuitive appeal across all statistical tests.

How is the p-value calculated?

Intuitively, the p-value is the probability of observing data like those observed assuming that Ho is true. Let’s be a bit more formal:

• Since this is a probability question about the data , it makes sense that the calculation will involve the data summary, the test statistic.
• What do we mean by “like” those observed? By “like” we mean “as extreme or even more extreme.”

Putting it all together, we get that in general:

The p-value is the probability of observing a test statistic as extreme as that observed (or even more extreme) assuming that the null hypothesis is true.

By “extreme” we mean extreme in the direction(s) of the alternative hypothesis.

Specifically , for the z-test for the population proportion:

• If the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p < p 0 (less than) , then “extreme” means small or less than , and the p-value is: The probability of observing a test statistic as small as that observed or smaller if the null hypothesis is true.
• If the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p > p 0 (greater than) , then “extreme” means large or greater than , and the p-value is: The probability of observing a test statistic as large as that observed or larger if the null hypothesis is true.
• If the alternative is Ha: p ≠ p 0 (different from) , then “extreme” means extreme in either direction either small or large (i.e., large in magnitude) or just different from , and the p-value therefore is: The probability of observing a test statistic as large in magnitude as that observed or larger if the null hypothesis is true.(Examples: If z = -2.5: p-value = probability of observing a test statistic as small as -2.5 or smaller or as large as 2.5 or larger. If z = 1.5: p-value = probability of observing a test statistic as large as 1.5 or larger, or as small as -1.5 or smaller.)

OK, hopefully that makes (some) sense. But how do we actually calculate it?

Recall the important comment from our discussion about our test statistic,

which said that when the null hypothesis is true (i.e., when p = p 0 ), the possible values of our test statistic follow a standard normal (N(0,1), denoted by Z) distribution. Therefore, the p-value calculations (which assume that Ho is true) are simply standard normal distribution calculations for the 3 possible alternative hypotheses.

Alternative Hypothesis is “Less Than”

The probability of observing a test statistic as small as that observed or smaller , assuming that the values of the test statistic follow a standard normal distribution. We will now represent this probability in symbols and also using the normal distribution.

Looking at the shaded region, you can see why this is often referred to as a left-tailed test. We shaded to the left of the test statistic, since less than is to the left.

Alternative Hypothesis is “Greater Than”

The probability of observing a test statistic as large as that observed or larger , assuming that the values of the test statistic follow a standard normal distribution. Again, we will represent this probability in symbols and using the normal distribution

Looking at the shaded region, you can see why this is often referred to as a right-tailed test. We shaded to the right of the test statistic, since greater than is to the right.

Alternative Hypothesis is “Not Equal To”

The probability of observing a test statistic which is as large in magnitude as that observed or larger, assuming that the values of the test statistic follow a standard normal distribution.

This is often referred to as a two-tailed test, since we shaded in both directions.

Next, we will apply this to our three examples. But first, work through the following activities, which should help your understanding.

Learn by Doing: Proportions (Step 3)

Did I Get This?: Proportions (Step 3)

The p-value in this case is:

• The probability of observing a test statistic as small as -2 or smaller, assuming that Ho is true.

OR (recalling what the test statistic actually means in this case),

• The probability of observing a sample proportion that is 2 standard deviations or more below the null value (p 0 = 0.20), assuming that p 0 is the true population proportion.

OR, more specifically,

• The probability of observing a sample proportion of 0.16 or lower in a random sample of size 400, when the true population proportion is p 0 =0.20

In either case, the p-value is found as shown in the following figure:

To find P(Z ≤ -2) we can either use the calculator or table we learned to use in the probability unit for normal random variables. Eventually, after we understand the details, we will use software to run the test for us and the output will give us all the information we need. The p-value that the statistical software provides for this specific example is 0.023. The p-value tells us that it is pretty unlikely (probability of 0.023) to get data like those observed (test statistic of -2 or less) assuming that Ho is true.

• The probability of observing a test statistic as large as 0.91 or larger, assuming that Ho is true.
• The probability of observing a sample proportion that is 0.91 standard deviations or more above the null value (p 0 = 0.157), assuming that p 0 is the true population proportion.
• The probability of observing a sample proportion of 0.19 or higher in a random sample of size 100, when the true population proportion is p 0 =0.157

Again, at this point we can either use the calculator or table to find that the p-value is 0.182, this is P(Z ≥ 0.91).

The p-value tells us that it is not very surprising (probability of 0.182) to get data like those observed (which yield a test statistic of 0.91 or higher) assuming that the null hypothesis is true.

• The probability of observing a test statistic as large as 2.31 (or larger) or as small as -2.31 (or smaller), assuming that Ho is true.
• The probability of observing a sample proportion that is 2.31 standard deviations or more away from the null value (p 0 = 0.64), assuming that p 0 is the true population proportion.
• The probability of observing a sample proportion as different as 0.675 is from 0.64, or even more different (i.e. as high as 0.675 or higher or as low as 0.605 or lower) in a random sample of size 1,000, when the true population proportion is p 0 = 0.64

Again, at this point we can either use the calculator or table to find that the p-value is 0.021, this is P(Z ≤ -2.31) + P(Z ≥ 2.31) = 2*P(Z ≥ |2.31|)

The p-value tells us that it is pretty unlikely (probability of 0.021) to get data like those observed (test statistic as high as 2.31 or higher or as low as -2.31 or lower) assuming that Ho is true.

• We’ve just seen that finding p-values involves probability calculations about the value of the test statistic assuming that Ho is true. In this case, when Ho is true, the values of the test statistic follow a standard normal distribution (i.e., the sampling distribution of the test statistic when the null hypothesis is true is N(0,1)). Therefore, p-values correspond to areas (probabilities) under the standard normal curve.

Similarly, in any test , p-values are found using the sampling distribution of the test statistic when the null hypothesis is true (also known as the “null distribution” of the test statistic). In this case, it was relatively easy to argue that the null distribution of our test statistic is N(0,1). As we’ll see, in other tests, other distributions come up (like the t-distribution and the F-distribution), which we will just mention briefly, and rely heavily on the output of our statistical package for obtaining the p-values.

We’ve just completed our discussion about the p-value, and how it is calculated both in general and more specifically for the z-test for the population proportion. Let’s go back to the four-step process of hypothesis testing and see what we’ve covered and what still needs to be discussed.

With respect to the z-test the population proportion:

Step 3: Completed

Step 4. This is what we will work on next.

Learn by Doing: Proportions (Step 3) Understanding P-values

Proportions (Step 4 & Summary)

Video: Proportions (Step 4 & Summary) (4:30)

Step 4. Drawing Conclusions Based on the P-Value

This last part of the four-step process of hypothesis testing is the same across all statistical tests, and actually, we’ve already said basically everything there is to say about it, but it can’t hurt to say it again.

The p-value is a measure of how much evidence the data present against Ho. The smaller the p-value, the more evidence the data present against Ho.

We already mentioned that what determines what constitutes enough evidence against Ho is the significance level (α, alpha), a cutoff point below which the p-value is considered small enough to reject Ho in favor of Ha. The most commonly used significance level is 0.05.

• Conclusion: There IS enough evidence that Ha is True
• Conclusion: There IS NOT enough evidence that Ha is True

Where instead of Ha is True , we write what this means in the words of the problem, in other words, in the context of the current scenario.

It is important to mention again that this step has essentially two sub-steps:

(i) Based on the p-value, determine whether or not the results are statistically significant (i.e., the data present enough evidence to reject Ho).

(ii) State your conclusions in the context of the problem.

Note: We always still must consider whether the results have any practical significance, particularly if they are statistically significant as a statistically significant result which has not practical use is essentially meaningless!

Let’s go back to our three examples and draw conclusions.

We found that the p-value for this test was 0.023.

Since 0.023 is small (in particular, 0.023 < 0.05), the data provide enough evidence to reject Ho.

Conclusion:

• There IS enough evidence that the proportion of defective products is less than 20% after the repair .

The following figure is the complete story of this example, and includes all the steps we went through, starting from stating the hypotheses and ending with our conclusions:

We found that the p-value for this test was 0.182.

Since .182 is not small (in particular, 0.182 > 0.05), the data do not provide enough evidence to reject Ho.

• There IS NOT enough evidence that the proportion of students at the college who use marijuana is higher than the national figure.

Here is the complete story of this example:

Learn by Doing: Learn by Doing – Proportions (Step 4)

We found that the p-value for this test was 0.021.

Since 0.021 is small (in particular, 0.021 < 0.05), the data provide enough evidence to reject Ho

• There IS enough evidence that the proportion of adults who support the death penalty for convicted murderers has changed since 2003.

Did I Get This?: Proportions (Step 4)

Many Students Wonder: Hypothesis Testing for the Population Proportion

Many students wonder why 5% is often selected as the significance level in hypothesis testing, and why 1% is the next most typical level. This is largely due to just convenience and tradition.

When Ronald Fisher (one of the founders of modern statistics) published one of his tables, he used a mathematically convenient scale that included 5% and 1%. Later, these same 5% and 1% levels were used by other people, in part just because Fisher was so highly esteemed. But mostly these are arbitrary levels.

The idea of selecting some sort of relatively small cutoff was historically important in the development of statistics; but it’s important to remember that there is really a continuous range of increasing confidence towards the alternative hypothesis, not a single all-or-nothing value. There isn’t much meaningful difference, for instance, between a p-value of .049 or .051, and it would be foolish to declare one case definitely a “real” effect and to declare the other case definitely a “random” effect. In either case, the study results were roughly 5% likely by chance if there’s no actual effect.

Whether such a p-value is sufficient for us to reject a particular null hypothesis ultimately depends on the risk of making the wrong decision, and the extent to which the hypothesized effect might contradict our prior experience or previous studies.

Let’s Summarize!!

We have now completed going through the four steps of hypothesis testing, and in particular we learned how they are applied to the z-test for the population proportion. Here is a brief summary:

Step 1: State the hypotheses

State the null hypothesis:

State the alternative hypothesis:

where the choice of the appropriate alternative (out of the three) is usually quite clear from the context of the problem. If you feel it is not clear, it is most likely a two-sided problem. Students are usually good at recognizing the “more than” and “less than” terminology but differences can sometimes be more difficult to spot, sometimes this is because you have preconceived ideas of how you think it should be! Use only the information given in the problem.

Step 2: Obtain data, check conditions, and summarize data

Obtain data from a sample and:

(i) Check whether the data satisfy the conditions which allow you to use this test.

random sample (or at least a sample that can be considered random in context)

the conditions under which the sampling distribution of p-hat is normal are met

(ii) Calculate the sample proportion p-hat, and summarize the data using the test statistic:

( Recall: This standardized test statistic represents how many standard deviations above or below p 0 our sample proportion p-hat is.)

Step 3: Find the p-value of the test by using the test statistic as follows

IMPORTANT FACT: In all future tests, we will rely on software to obtain the p-value.

When the alternative hypothesis is “less than” the probability of observing a test statistic as small as that observed or smaller , assuming that the values of the test statistic follow a standard normal distribution. We will now represent this probability in symbols and also using the normal distribution.

When the alternative hypothesis is “greater than” the probability of observing a test statistic as large as that observed or larger , assuming that the values of the test statistic follow a standard normal distribution. Again, we will represent this probability in symbols and using the normal distribution

When the alternative hypothesis is “not equal to” the probability of observing a test statistic which is as large in magnitude as that observed or larger, assuming that the values of the test statistic follow a standard normal distribution.

Step 4: Conclusion

Reach a conclusion first regarding the statistical significance of the results, and then determine what it means in the context of the problem.

If p-value ≤ 0.05 then WE REJECT Ho Conclusion: There IS enough evidence that Ha is True

If p-value > 0.05 then WE FAIL TO REJECT Ho Conclusion: There IS NOT enough evidence that Ha is True

Recall that: If the p-value is small (in particular, smaller than the significance level, which is usually 0.05), the results are statistically significant (in the sense that there is a statistically significant difference between what was observed in the sample and what was claimed in Ho), and so we reject Ho.

If the p-value is not small, we do not have enough statistical evidence to reject Ho, and so we continue to believe that Ho may be true. ( Remember: In hypothesis testing we never “accept” Ho ).

Finally, in practice, we should always consider the practical significance of the results as well as the statistical significance.

Learn by Doing: Z-Test for a Population Proportion

What’s next?

Before we move on to the next test, we are going to use the z-test for proportions to bring up and illustrate a few more very important issues regarding hypothesis testing. This might also be a good time to review the concepts of Type I error, Type II error, and Power before continuing on.

More about Hypothesis Testing

CO-1: Describe the roles biostatistics serves in the discipline of public health.

LO 1.11: Recognize the distinction between statistical significance and practical significance.

LO 6.30: Use a confidence interval to determine the correct conclusion to the associated two-sided hypothesis test.

Video: More about Hypothesis Testing (18:25)

The issues regarding hypothesis testing that we will discuss are:

• The effect of sample size on hypothesis testing.
• Statistical significance vs. practical importance.
• Hypothesis testing and confidence intervals—how are they related?

Let’s begin.

1. The Effect of Sample Size on Hypothesis Testing

We have already seen the effect that the sample size has on inference, when we discussed point and interval estimation for the population mean (μ, mu) and population proportion (p). Intuitively …

Larger sample sizes give us more information to pin down the true nature of the population. We can therefore expect the sample mean and sample proportion obtained from a larger sample to be closer to the population mean and proportion, respectively. As a result, for the same level of confidence, we can report a smaller margin of error, and get a narrower confidence interval. What we’ve seen, then, is that larger sample size gives a boost to how much we trust our sample results.

In hypothesis testing, larger sample sizes have a similar effect. We have also discussed that the power of our test increases when the sample size increases, all else remaining the same. This means, we have a better chance to detect the difference between the true value and the null value for larger samples.

The following two examples will illustrate that a larger sample size provides more convincing evidence (the test has greater power), and how the evidence manifests itself in hypothesis testing. Let’s go back to our example 2 (marijuana use at a certain liberal arts college).

We do not have enough evidence to conclude that the proportion of students at the college who use marijuana is higher than the national figure.

Now, let’s increase the sample size.

There are rumors that students in a certain liberal arts college are more inclined to use drugs than U.S. college students in general. Suppose that in a simple random sample of 400 students from the college, 76 admitted to marijuana use . Do the data provide enough evidence to conclude that the proportion of marijuana users among the students in the college (p) is higher than the national proportion, which is 0.157? (Reported by the Harvard School of Public Health).

Our results here are statistically significant . In other words, in example 2* the data provide enough evidence to reject Ho.

• Conclusion: There is enough evidence that the proportion of marijuana users at the college is higher than among all U.S. students.

What do we learn from this?

We see that sample results that are based on a larger sample carry more weight (have greater power).

In example 2, we saw that a sample proportion of 0.19 based on a sample of size of 100 was not enough evidence that the proportion of marijuana users in the college is higher than 0.157. Recall, from our general overview of hypothesis testing, that this conclusion (not having enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis) doesn’t mean the null hypothesis is necessarily true (so, we never “accept” the null); it only means that the particular study didn’t yield sufficient evidence to reject the null. It might be that the sample size was simply too small to detect a statistically significant difference.

However, in example 2*, we saw that when the sample proportion of 0.19 is obtained from a sample of size 400, it carries much more weight, and in particular, provides enough evidence that the proportion of marijuana users in the college is higher than 0.157 (the national figure). In this case, the sample size of 400 was large enough to detect a statistically significant difference.

The following activity will allow you to practice the ideas and terminology used in hypothesis testing when a result is not statistically significant.

Learn by Doing: Interpreting Non-significant Results

2. Statistical significance vs. practical importance.

Now, we will address the issue of statistical significance versus practical importance (which also involves issues of sample size).

The following activity will let you explore the effect of the sample size on the statistical significance of the results yourself, and more importantly will discuss issue 2: Statistical significance vs. practical importance.

Important Fact: In general, with a sufficiently large sample size you can make any result that has very little practical importance statistically significant! A large sample size alone does NOT make a “good” study!!

This suggests that when interpreting the results of a test, you should always think not only about the statistical significance of the results but also about their practical importance.

Learn by Doing: Statistical vs. Practical Significance

3. Hypothesis Testing and Confidence Intervals

The last topic we want to discuss is the relationship between hypothesis testing and confidence intervals. Even though the flavor of these two forms of inference is different (confidence intervals estimate a parameter, and hypothesis testing assesses the evidence in the data against one claim and in favor of another), there is a strong link between them.

We will explain this link (using the z-test and confidence interval for the population proportion), and then explain how confidence intervals can be used after a test has been carried out.

Recall that a confidence interval gives us a set of plausible values for the unknown population parameter. We may therefore examine a confidence interval to informally decide if a proposed value of population proportion seems plausible.

For example, if a 95% confidence interval for p, the proportion of all U.S. adults already familiar with Viagra in May 1998, was (0.61, 0.67), then it seems clear that we should be able to reject a claim that only 50% of all U.S. adults were familiar with the drug, since based on the confidence interval, 0.50 is not one of the plausible values for p.

In fact, the information provided by a confidence interval can be formally related to the information provided by a hypothesis test. ( Comment: The relationship is more straightforward for two-sided alternatives, and so we will not present results for the one-sided cases.)

Suppose we want to carry out the two-sided test:

• Ha: p ≠ p 0

using a significance level of 0.05.

An alternative way to perform this test is to find a 95% confidence interval for p and check:

• If p 0 falls outside the confidence interval, reject Ho.
• If p 0 falls inside the confidence interval, do not reject Ho.

In other words,

• If p 0 is not one of the plausible values for p, we reject Ho.
• If p 0 is a plausible value for p, we cannot reject Ho.

( Comment: Similarly, the results of a test using a significance level of 0.01 can be related to the 99% confidence interval.)

Let’s look at an example:

Recall example 3, where we wanted to know whether the proportion of U.S. adults who support the death penalty for convicted murderers has changed since 2003, when it was 0.64.

We are testing:

and as the figure reminds us, we took a sample of 1,000 U.S. adults, and the data told us that 675 supported the death penalty for convicted murderers (p-hat = 0.675).

A 95% confidence interval for p, the proportion of all U.S. adults who support the death penalty, is:

\(0.675 \pm 1.96 \sqrt{\dfrac{0.675(1-0.675)}{1000}} \approx 0.675 \pm 0.029=(0.646,0.704)\)

Since the 95% confidence interval for p does not include 0.64 as a plausible value for p, we can reject Ho and conclude (as we did before) that there is enough evidence that the proportion of U.S. adults who support the death penalty for convicted murderers has changed since 2003.

You and your roommate are arguing about whose turn it is to clean the apartment. Your roommate suggests that you settle this by tossing a coin and takes one out of a locked box he has on the shelf. Suspecting that the coin might not be fair, you decide to test it first. You toss the coin 80 times, thinking to yourself that if, indeed, the coin is fair, you should get around 40 heads. Instead you get 48 heads. You are puzzled. You are not sure whether getting 48 heads out of 80 is enough evidence to conclude that the coin is unbalanced, or whether this a result that could have happened just by chance when the coin is fair.

Statistics can help you answer this question.

Let p be the true proportion (probability) of heads. We want to test whether the coin is fair or not.

• Ho: p = 0.5 (the coin is fair).
• Ha: p ≠ 0.5 (the coin is not fair).

The data we have are that out of n = 80 tosses, we got 48 heads, or that the sample proportion of heads is p-hat = 48/80 = 0.6.

A 95% confidence interval for p, the true proportion of heads for this coin, is:

\(0.6 \pm 1.96 \sqrt{\dfrac{0.6(1-0.6)}{80}} \approx 0.6 \pm 0.11=(0.49,0.71)\)

Since in this case 0.5 is one of the plausible values for p, we cannot reject Ho. In other words, the data do not provide enough evidence to conclude that the coin is not fair.

The context of the last example is a good opportunity to bring up an important point that was discussed earlier.

Even though we use 0.05 as a cutoff to guide our decision about whether the results are statistically significant, we should not treat it as inviolable and we should always add our own judgment. Let’s look at the last example again.

It turns out that the p-value of this test is 0.0734. In other words, it is maybe not extremely unlikely, but it is quite unlikely (probability of 0.0734) that when you toss a fair coin 80 times you’ll get a sample proportion of heads of 48/80 = 0.6 (or even more extreme). It is true that using the 0.05 significance level (cutoff), 0.0734 is not considered small enough to conclude that the coin is not fair. However, if you really don’t want to clean the apartment, the p-value might be small enough for you to ask your roommate to use a different coin, or to provide one yourself!

Did I Get This?: Connection between Confidence Intervals and Hypothesis Tests

Did I Get This?: Hypothesis Tests for Proportions (Extra Practice)

Here is our final point on this subject:

When the data provide enough evidence to reject Ho, we can conclude (depending on the alternative hypothesis) that the population proportion is either less than, greater than, or not equal to the null value p 0 . However, we do not get a more informative statement about its actual value. It might be of interest, then, to follow the test with a 95% confidence interval that will give us more insight into the actual value of p.

In our example 3,

we concluded that the proportion of U.S. adults who support the death penalty for convicted murderers has changed since 2003, when it was 0.64. It is probably of interest not only to know that the proportion has changed, but also to estimate what it has changed to. We’ve calculated the 95% confidence interval for p on the previous page and found that it is (0.646, 0.704).

We can combine our conclusions from the test and the confidence interval and say:

Data provide evidence that the proportion of U.S. adults who support the death penalty for convicted murderers has changed since 2003, and we are 95% confident that it is now between 0.646 and 0.704. (i.e. between 64.6% and 70.4%).

Let’s look at our example 1 to see how a confidence interval following a test might be insightful in a different way.

Here is a summary of example 1:

We conclude that as a result of the repair, the proportion of defective products has been reduced to below 0.20 (which was the proportion prior to the repair). It is probably of great interest to the company not only to know that the proportion of defective has been reduced, but also estimate what it has been reduced to, to get a better sense of how effective the repair was. A 95% confidence interval for p in this case is:

\(0.16 \pm 1.96 \sqrt{\dfrac{0.16(1-0.16)}{400}} \approx 0.16 \pm 0.036=(0.124,0.196)\)

We can therefore say that the data provide evidence that the proportion of defective products has been reduced, and we are 95% confident that it has been reduced to somewhere between 12.4% and 19.6%. This is very useful information, since it tells us that even though the results were significant (i.e., the repair reduced the number of defective products), the repair might not have been effective enough, if it managed to reduce the number of defective products only to the range provided by the confidence interval. This, of course, ties back in to the idea of statistical significance vs. practical importance that we discussed earlier. Even though the results are statistically significant (Ho was rejected), practically speaking, the repair might still be considered ineffective.

Learn by Doing: Hypothesis Tests and Confidence Intervals

Even though this portion of the current section is about the z-test for population proportion, it is loaded with very important ideas that apply to hypothesis testing in general. We’ve already summarized the details that are specific to the z-test for proportions, so the purpose of this summary is to highlight the general ideas.

The process of hypothesis testing has four steps :

I. Stating the null and alternative hypotheses (Ho and Ha).

II. Obtaining a random sample (or at least one that can be considered random) and collecting data. Using the data:

Check that the conditions under which the test can be reliably used are met.

Summarize the data using a test statistic.

• The test statistic is a measure of the evidence in the data against Ho. The larger the test statistic is in magnitude, the more evidence the data present against Ho.

III. Finding the p-value of the test. The p-value is the probability of getting data like those observed (or even more extreme) assuming that the null hypothesis is true, and is calculated using the null distribution of the test statistic. The p-value is a measure of the evidence against Ho. The smaller the p-value, the more evidence the data present against Ho.

IV. Making conclusions.

Conclusions about the statistical significance of the results:

If the p-value is small, the data present enough evidence to reject Ho (and accept Ha).

If the p-value is not small, the data do not provide enough evidence to reject Ho.

To help guide our decision, we use the significance level as a cutoff for what is considered a small p-value. The significance cutoff is usually set at 0.05.

Conclusions should then be provided in the context of the problem.

Additional Important Ideas about Hypothesis Testing

• Results that are based on a larger sample carry more weight, and therefore as the sample size increases, results become more statistically significant.
• Even a very small and practically unimportant effect becomes statistically significant with a large enough sample size. The distinction between statistical significance and practical importance should therefore always be considered.
• Confidence intervals can be used in order to carry out two-sided tests (95% confidence for the 0.05 significance level). If the null value is not included in the confidence interval (i.e., is not one of the plausible values for the parameter), we have enough evidence to reject Ho. Otherwise, we cannot reject Ho.
• If the results are statistically significant, it might be of interest to follow up the tests with a confidence interval in order to get insight into the actual value of the parameter of interest.
• It is important to be aware that there are two types of errors in hypothesis testing ( Type I and Type II ) and that the power of a statistical test is an important measure of how likely we are to be able to detect a difference of interest to us in a particular problem.

Means (All Steps)

NOTE: Beginning on this page, the Learn By Doing and Did I Get This activities are presented as interactive PDF files. The interactivity may not work on mobile devices or with certain PDF viewers. Use an official ADOBE product such as ADOBE READER .

If you have any issues with the Learn By Doing or Did I Get This interactive PDF files, you can view all of the questions and answers presented on this page in this document:

• QUESTION/Answer (SPOILER ALERT!)

Tests About μ (mu) When σ (sigma) is Unknown – The t-test for a Population Mean

The t-distribution.

Video: Means (All Steps) (13:11)

So far we have talked about the logic behind hypothesis testing and then illustrated how this process proceeds in practice, using the z-test for the population proportion (p).

We are now moving on to discuss testing for the population mean (μ, mu), which is the parameter of interest when the variable of interest is quantitative.

A few comments about the structure of this section:

• The basic groundwork for carrying out hypothesis tests has already been laid in our general discussion and in our presentation of tests about proportions.

Therefore we can easily modify the four steps to carry out tests about means instead, without going into all of the details again.

We will use this approach for all future tests so be sure to go back to the discussion in general and for proportions to review the concepts in more detail.

• In our discussion about confidence intervals for the population mean, we made the distinction between whether the population standard deviation, σ (sigma) was known or if we needed to estimate this value using the sample standard deviation, s .

In this section, we will only discuss the second case as in most realistic settings we do not know the population standard deviation .

In this case we need to use the t- distribution instead of the standard normal distribution for the probability aspects of confidence intervals (choosing table values) and hypothesis tests (finding p-values).

• Although we will discuss some theoretical or conceptual details for some of the analyses we will learn, from this point on we will rely on software to conduct tests and calculate confidence intervals for us , while we focus on understanding which methods are used for which situations and what the results say in context.

If you are interested in more information about the z-test, where we assume the population standard deviation σ (sigma) is known, you can review the Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Statistics Course (you will need to click “ENTER COURSE”).

Like any other tests, the t- test for the population mean follows the four-step process:

• STEP 1: Stating the hypotheses H o and H a .
• STEP 2: Collecting relevant data, checking that the data satisfy the conditions which allow us to use this test, and summarizing the data using a test statistic.
• STEP 3: Finding the p-value of the test, the probability of obtaining data as extreme as those collected (or even more extreme, in the direction of the alternative hypothesis), assuming that the null hypothesis is true. In other words, how likely is it that the only reason for getting data like those observed is sampling variability (and not because H o is not true)?
• STEP 4: Drawing conclusions, assessing the statistical significance of the results based on the p-value, and stating our conclusions in context. (Do we or don’t we have evidence to reject H o and accept H a ?)
• Note: In practice, we should also always consider the practical significance of the results as well as the statistical significance.

We will now go through the four steps specifically for the t- test for the population mean and apply them to our two examples.

Only in a few cases is it reasonable to assume that the population standard deviation, σ (sigma), is known and so we will not cover hypothesis tests in this case. We discussed both cases for confidence intervals so that we could still calculate some confidence intervals by hand.

For this and all future tests we will rely on software to obtain our summary statistics, test statistics, and p-values for us.

The case where σ (sigma) is unknown is much more common in practice. What can we use to replace σ (sigma)? If you don’t know the population standard deviation, the best you can do is find the sample standard deviation, s, and use it instead of σ (sigma). (Note that this is exactly what we did when we discussed confidence intervals).

Is that it? Can we just use s instead of σ (sigma), and the rest is the same as the previous case? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, but not very complicated either.

Here, when we use the sample standard deviation, s, as our estimate of σ (sigma) we can no longer use a normal distribution to find the cutoff for confidence intervals or the p-values for hypothesis tests.

Instead we must use the t- distribution (with n-1 degrees of freedom) to obtain the p-value for this test.

We discussed this issue for confidence intervals. We will talk more about the t- distribution after we discuss the details of this test for those who are interested in learning more.

It isn’t really necessary for us to understand this distribution but it is important that we use the correct distributions in practice via our software.

We will wait until UNIT 4B to look at how to accomplish this test in the software. For now focus on understanding the process and drawing the correct conclusions from the p-values given.

Now let’s go through the four steps in conducting the t- test for the population mean.

The null and alternative hypotheses for the t- test for the population mean (μ, mu) have exactly the same structure as the hypotheses for z-test for the population proportion (p):

The null hypothesis has the form:

• Ho: μ = μ 0 (mu = mu_zero)

(where μ 0 (mu_zero) is often called the null value)

• Ha: μ < μ 0 (mu < mu_zero) (one-sided)
• Ha: μ > μ 0 (mu > mu_zero) (one-sided)
• Ha: μ ≠ μ 0 (mu ≠ mu_zero) (two-sided)

where the choice of the appropriate alternative (out of the three) is usually quite clear from the context of the problem.

If you feel it is not clear, it is most likely a two-sided problem. Students are usually good at recognizing the “more than” and “less than” terminology but differences can sometimes be more difficult to spot, sometimes this is because you have preconceived ideas of how you think it should be! You also cannot use the information from the sample to help you determine the hypothesis. We would not know our data when we originally asked the question.

Now try it yourself. Here are a few exercises on stating the hypotheses for tests for a population mean.

Learn by Doing: State the Hypotheses for a test for a population mean

Here are a few more activities for practice.

Did I Get This?: State the Hypotheses for a test for a population mean

When setting up hypotheses, be sure to use only the information in the research question. We cannot use our sample data to help us set up our hypotheses.

For this test, it is still important to correctly choose the alternative hypothesis as “less than”, “greater than”, or “different” although generally in practice two-sample tests are used.

Obtain data from a sample:

• In this step we would obtain data from a sample. This is not something we do much of in courses but it is done very often in practice!

Check the conditions:

• Then we check the conditions under which this test (the t- test for one population mean) can be safely carried out – which are:
• The sample is random (or at least can be considered random in context).
• We are in one of the three situations marked with a green check mark in the following table (which ensure that x-bar is at least approximately normal and the test statistic using the sample standard deviation, s, is therefore a t- distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom – proving this is beyond the scope of this course):
• For large samples, we don’t need to check for normality in the population . We can rely on the sample size as the basis for the validity of using this test.
• For small samples , we need to have data from a normal population in order for the p-values and confidence intervals to be valid.

In practice, for small samples, it can be very difficult to determine if the population is normal. Here is a simulation to give you a better understanding of the difficulties.

Video: Simulations – Are Samples from a Normal Population? (4:58)

Now try it yourself with a few activities.

Learn by Doing: Checking Conditions for Hypothesis Testing for the Population Mean

• It is always a good idea to look at the data and get a sense of their pattern regardless of whether you actually need to do it in order to assess whether the conditions are met.
• This idea of looking at the data is relevant to all tests in general. In the next module—inference for relationships—conducting exploratory data analysis before inference will be an integral part of the process.

Here are a few more problems for extra practice.

Did I Get This?: Checking Conditions for Hypothesis Testing for the Population Mean

When setting up hypotheses, be sure to use only the information in the res

Calculate Test Statistic

Assuming that the conditions are met, we calculate the sample mean x-bar and the sample standard deviation, s (which estimates σ (sigma)), and summarize the data with a test statistic.

The test statistic for the t -test for the population mean is:

\(t=\dfrac{\bar{x} - \mu_0}{s/ \sqrt{n}}\)

Recall that such a standardized test statistic represents how many standard deviations above or below μ 0 (mu_zero) our sample mean x-bar is.

Therefore our test statistic is a measure of how different our data are from what is claimed in the null hypothesis. This is an idea that we mentioned in the previous test as well.

Again we will rely on the p-value to determine how unusual our data would be if the null hypothesis is true.

As we mentioned, the test statistic in the t -test for a population mean does not follow a standard normal distribution. Rather, it follows another bell-shaped distribution called the t- distribution.

We will present the details of this distribution at the end for those interested but for now we will work on the process of the test.

Here are a few important facts.

• In statistical language we say that the null distribution of our test statistic is the t- distribution with (n-1) degrees of freedom. In other words, when Ho is true (i.e., when μ = μ 0 (mu = mu_zero)), our test statistic has a t- distribution with (n-1) d.f., and this is the distribution under which we find p-values.
• For a large sample size (n), the null distribution of the test statistic is approximately Z, so whether we use t (n – 1) or Z to calculate the p-values does not make a big difference. However, software will use the t -distribution regardless of the sample size and so will we.

Although we will not calculate p-values by hand for this test, we can still easily calculate the test statistic.

Try it yourself:

Learn by Doing: Calculate the Test Statistic for a Test for a Population Mean

From this point in this course and certainly in practice we will allow the software to calculate our test statistics and we will use the p-values provided to draw our conclusions.

We will use software to obtain the p-value for this (and all future) tests but here are the images illustrating how the p-value is calculated in each of the three cases corresponding to the three choices for our alternative hypothesis.

Note that due to the symmetry of the t distribution, for a given value of the test statistic t, the p-value for the two-sided test is twice as large as the p-value of either of the one-sided tests. The same thing happens when p-values are calculated under the t distribution as when they are calculated under the Z distribution.

We will show some examples of p-values obtained from software in our examples. For now let’s continue our summary of the steps.

As usual, based on the p-value (and some significance level of choice) we assess the statistical significance of results, and draw our conclusions in context.

To review what we have said before:

If p-value ≤ 0.05 then WE REJECT Ho

If p-value > 0.05 then WE FAIL TO REJECT Ho

This step has essentially two sub-steps:

We are now ready to look at two examples.

A certain prescription medicine is supposed to contain an average of 250 parts per million (ppm) of a certain chemical. If the concentration is higher than this, the drug may cause harmful side effects; if it is lower, the drug may be ineffective.

The manufacturer runs a check to see if the mean concentration in a large shipment conforms to the target level of 250 ppm or not.

A simple random sample of 100 portions is tested, and the sample mean concentration is found to be 247 ppm with a sample standard deviation of 12 ppm.

Here is a figure that represents this example:

1. The hypotheses being tested are:

• Ha: μ ≠ μ 0 (mu ≠ mu_zero)
• Where μ = population mean part per million of the chemical in the entire shipment

2. The conditions that allow us to use the t-test are met since:

• The sample is random
• The sample size is large enough for the Central Limit Theorem to apply and ensure the normality of x-bar. We do not need normality of the population in order to be able to conduct this test for the population mean. We are in the 2 nd column in the table below.
• The test statistic is:

\(t=\dfrac{\bar{x}-\mu_{0}}{s / \sqrt{n}}=\dfrac{247-250}{12 / \sqrt{100}}=-2.5\)

• The data (represented by the sample mean) are 2.5 standard errors below the null value.

3. Finding the p-value.

• To find the p-value we use statistical software, and we calculate a p-value of 0.014.

4. Conclusions:

• The p-value is small (.014) indicating that at the 5% significance level, the results are significant.
• We reject the null hypothesis.
• There is enough evidence to conclude that the mean concentration in entire shipment is not the required 250 ppm.
• It is difficult to comment on the practical significance of this result without more understanding of the practical considerations of this problem.

Here is a summary:

• The 95% confidence interval for μ (mu) can be used here in the same way as for proportions to conduct the two-sided test (checking whether the null value falls inside or outside the confidence interval) or following a t- test where Ho was rejected to get insight into the value of μ (mu).
• We find the 95% confidence interval to be (244.619, 249.381) . Since 250 is not in the interval we know we would reject our null hypothesis that μ (mu) = 250. The confidence interval gives additional information. By accounting for estimation error, it estimates that the population mean is likely to be between 244.62 and 249.38. This is lower than the target concentration and that information might help determine the seriousness and appropriate course of action in this situation.

In most situations in practice we use TWO-SIDED HYPOTHESIS TESTS, followed by confidence intervals to gain more insight.

For completeness in covering one sample t-tests for a population mean, we still cover all three possible alternative hypotheses here HOWEVER, this will be the last test for which we will do so.

A research study measured the pulse rates of 57 college men and found a mean pulse rate of 70 beats per minute with a standard deviation of 9.85 beats per minute.

Researchers want to know if the mean pulse rate for all college men is different from the current standard of 72 beats per minute.

• The hypotheses being tested are:
• Ho: μ = 72
• Ha: μ ≠ 72
• Where μ = population mean heart rate among college men
• The conditions that allow us to use the t- test are met since:
• The sample is random.
• The sample size is large (n = 57) so we do not need normality of the population in order to be able to conduct this test for the population mean. We are in the 2 nd column in the table below.

\(t=\dfrac{\bar{x}-\mu}{s / \sqrt{n}}=\dfrac{70-72}{9.85 / \sqrt{57}}=-1.53\)

• The data (represented by the sample mean) are 1.53 estimated standard errors below the null value.
• Recall that in general the p-value is calculated under the null distribution of the test statistic, which, in the t- test case, is t (n-1). In our case, in which n = 57, the p-value is calculated under the t (56) distribution. Using statistical software, we find that the p-value is 0.132 .
• Here is how we calculated the p-value. http://homepage.stat.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/applets/t.html .

4. Making conclusions.

• The p-value (0.132) is not small, indicating that the results are not significant.
• We fail to reject the null hypothesis.
• There is not enough evidence to conclude that the mean pulse rate for all college men is different from the current standard of 72 beats per minute.
• The results from this sample do not appear to have any practical significance either with a mean pulse rate of 70, this is very similar to the hypothesized value, relative to the variation expected in pulse rates.

Now try a few yourself.

Learn by Doing: Hypothesis Testing for the Population Mean

From this point in this course and certainly in practice we will allow the software to calculate our test statistic and p-value and we will use the p-values provided to draw our conclusions.

That concludes our discussion of hypothesis tests in Unit 4A.

In the next unit we will continue to use both confidence intervals and hypothesis test to investigate the relationship between two variables in the cases we covered in Unit 1 on exploratory data analysis – we will look at Case CQ, Case CC, and Case QQ.

Before moving on, we will discuss the details about the t- distribution as a general object.

We have seen that variables can be visually modeled by many different sorts of shapes, and we call these shapes distributions. Several distributions arise so frequently that they have been given special names, and they have been studied mathematically.

So far in the course, the only one we’ve named, for continuous quantitative variables, is the normal distribution, but there are others. One of them is called the t- distribution.

The t- distribution is another bell-shaped (unimodal and symmetric) distribution, like the normal distribution; and the center of the t- distribution is standardized at zero, like the center of the standard normal distribution.

Like all distributions that are used as probability models, the normal and the t- distribution are both scaled, so the total area under each of them is 1.

So how is the t-distribution fundamentally different from the normal distribution?

• The spread .

The following picture illustrates the fundamental difference between the normal distribution and the t-distribution:

Here we have an image which illustrates the fundamental difference between the normal distribution and the t- distribution:

You can see in the picture that the t- distribution has slightly less area near the expected central value than the normal distribution does, and you can see that the t distribution has correspondingly more area in the “tails” than the normal distribution does. (It’s often said that the t- distribution has “fatter tails” or “heavier tails” than the normal distribution.)

This reflects the fact that the t- distribution has a larger spread than the normal distribution. The same total area of 1 is spread out over a slightly wider range on the t- distribution, making it a bit lower near the center compared to the normal distribution, and giving the t- distribution slightly more probability in the ‘tails’ compared to the normal distribution.

Therefore, the t- distribution ends up being the appropriate model in certain cases where there is more variability than would be predicted by the normal distribution. One of these cases is stock values, which have more variability (or “volatility,” to use the economic term) than would be predicted by the normal distribution.

There’s actually an entire family of t- distributions. They all have similar formulas (but the math is beyond the scope of this introductory course in statistics), and they all have slightly “fatter tails” than the normal distribution. But some are closer to normal than others.

The t- distributions that have higher “degrees of freedom” are closer to normal (degrees of freedom is a mathematical concept that we won’t study in this course, beyond merely mentioning it here). So, there’s a t- distribution “with one degree of freedom,” another t- distribution “with 2 degrees of freedom” which is slightly closer to normal, another t- distribution “with 3 degrees of freedom” which is a bit closer to normal than the previous ones, and so on.

The following picture illustrates this idea with just a couple of t- distributions (note that “degrees of freedom” is abbreviated “d.f.” on the picture):

The test statistic for our t-test for one population mean is a t -score which follows a t- distribution with (n – 1) degrees of freedom. Recall that each t- distribution is indexed according to “degrees of freedom.” Notice that, in the context of a test for a mean, the degrees of freedom depend on the sample size in the study.

Remember that we said that higher degrees of freedom indicate that the t- distribution is closer to normal. So in the context of a test for the mean, the larger the sample size , the higher the degrees of freedom, and the closer the t- distribution is to a normal z distribution .

As a result, in the context of a test for a mean, the effect of the t- distribution is most important for a study with a relatively small sample size .

We are now done introducing the t-distribution. What are implications of all of this?

• The null distribution of our t-test statistic is the t-distribution with (n-1) d.f. In other words, when Ho is true (i.e., when μ = μ 0 (mu = mu_zero)), our test statistic has a t-distribution with (n-1) d.f., and this is the distribution under which we find p-values.
• For a large sample size (n), the null distribution of the test statistic is approximately Z, so whether we use t(n – 1) or Z to calculate the p-values does not make a big difference.

• Maths Notes Class 12
• NCERT Solutions Class 12
• RD Sharma Solutions Class 12
• Maths Formulas Class 12
• Maths Previous Year Paper Class 12
• Class 12 Syllabus
• Class 12 Revision Notes
• Physics Notes Class 12
• Chemistry Notes Class 12
• Biology Notes Class 12
• Domain and Range of Trigonometric Functions
• Exponential Graph
• Line Integral
• Determinant of 2x2 Matrix
• Integral of Cos x
• Algebra of Matrices
• Random Sampling Method
• Derivative of Sin 2x
• Integration
• Derivative of Sec Square x
• Derivative Rules
• Derivative of Sec x
• Systematic Random Sampling
• Derivative of Tan Inverse x
• Derivative of Arctan
• Zero Vector
• Triple Integrals
• Local Maxima and Minima in Calculus

Hypothesis is a testable statement that explains what is happening or observed. It proposes the relation between the various participating variables. Hypothesis is also called Theory, Thesis, Guess, Assumption, or Suggestion. Hypothesis creates a structure that guides the search for knowledge.

In this article, we will learn what is hypothesis, its characteristics, types, and examples. We will also learn how hypothesis helps in scientific research.

What is Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a suggested idea or plan that has little proof, meant to lead to more study. It’s mainly a smart guess or suggested answer to a problem that can be checked through study and trial. In science work, we make guesses called hypotheses to try and figure out what will happen in tests or watching. These are not sure things but rather ideas that can be proved or disproved based on real-life proofs. A good theory is clear and can be tested and found wrong if the proof doesn’t support it.

Hypothesis Meaning

A hypothesis is a proposed statement that is testable and is given for something that happens or observed.

• It is made using what we already know and have seen, and it’s the basis for scientific research.
• A clear guess tells us what we think will happen in an experiment or study.
• It’s a testable clue that can be proven true or wrong with real-life facts and checking it out carefully.
• It usually looks like a “if-then” rule, showing the expected cause and effect relationship between what’s being studied.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some key characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable: An idea (hypothesis) should be made so it can be tested and proven true through doing experiments or watching. It should show a clear connection between things.
• Specific: It needs to be easy and on target, talking about a certain part or connection between things in a study.
• Falsifiable: A good guess should be able to show it’s wrong. This means there must be a chance for proof or seeing something that goes against the guess.
• Logical and Rational: It should be based on things we know now or have seen, giving a reasonable reason that fits with what we already know.
• Predictive: A guess often tells what to expect from an experiment or observation. It gives a guide for what someone might see if the guess is right.
• Concise: It should be short and clear, showing the suggested link or explanation simply without extra confusion.
• Grounded in Research: A guess is usually made from before studies, ideas or watching things. It comes from a deep understanding of what is already known in that area.
• Flexible: A guess helps in the research but it needs to change or fix when new information comes up.
• Relevant: It should be related to the question or problem being studied, helping to direct what the research is about.
• Empirical: Hypotheses come from observations and can be tested using methods based on real-world experiences.

Sources of Hypothesis

Hypotheses can come from different places based on what you’re studying and the kind of research. Here are some common sources from which hypotheses may originate:

• Existing Theories: Often, guesses come from well-known science ideas. These ideas may show connections between things or occurrences that scientists can look into more.
• Observation and Experience: Watching something happen or having personal experiences can lead to guesses. We notice odd things or repeat events in everyday life and experiments. This can make us think of guesses called hypotheses.
• Previous Research: Using old studies or discoveries can help come up with new ideas. Scientists might try to expand or question current findings, making guesses that further study old results.
• Literature Review: Looking at books and research in a subject can help make guesses. Noticing missing parts or mismatches in previous studies might make researchers think up guesses to deal with these spots.
• Problem Statement or Research Question: Often, ideas come from questions or problems in the study. Making clear what needs to be looked into can help create ideas that tackle certain parts of the issue.
• Analogies or Comparisons: Making comparisons between similar things or finding connections from related areas can lead to theories. Understanding from other fields could create new guesses in a different situation.
• Hunches and Speculation: Sometimes, scientists might get a gut feeling or make guesses that help create ideas to test. Though these may not have proof at first, they can be a beginning for looking deeper.
• Technology and Innovations: New technology or tools might make guesses by letting us look at things that were hard to study before.
• Personal Interest and Curiosity: People’s curiosity and personal interests in a topic can help create guesses. Scientists could make guesses based on their own likes or love for a subject.

Types of Hypothesis

Here are some common types of hypotheses:

Simple Hypothesis

Complex hypothesis, directional hypothesis.

• Non-directional Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis (H0)

Alternative hypothesis (h1 or ha), statistical hypothesis, research hypothesis, associative hypothesis, causal hypothesis.

Simple Hypothesis guesses a connection between two things. It says that there is a connection or difference between variables, but it doesn’t tell us which way the relationship goes.

Complex Hypothesis tells us what will happen when more than two things are connected. It looks at how different things interact and may be linked together.

Directional Hypothesis says how one thing is related to another. For example, it guesses that one thing will help or hurt another thing.

Non-Directional Hypothesis

Non-Directional Hypothesis are the one that don’t say how the relationship between things will be. They just say that there is a connection, without telling which way it goes.

Null hypothesis is a statement that says there’s no connection or difference between different things. It implies that any seen impacts are because of luck or random changes in the information.

Alternative Hypothesis is different from the null hypothesis and shows that there’s a big connection or gap between variables. Scientists want to say no to the null hypothesis and choose the alternative one.

Statistical Hypotheis are used in math testing and include making ideas about what groups or bits of them look like. You aim to get information or test certain things using these top-level, common words only.

Research Hypothesis comes from the research question and tells what link is expected between things or factors. It leads the study and chooses where to look more closely.

Associative Hypotheis guesses that there is a link or connection between things without really saying it caused them. It means that when one thing changes, it is connected to another thing changing.

Causal Hypothesis are different from other ideas because they say that one thing causes another. This means there’s a cause and effect relationship between variables involved in the situation. They say that when one thing changes, it directly makes another thing change.

Hypothesis Examples

Following are the examples of hypotheses based on their types:

Simple Hypothesis Example

• Studying more can help you do better on tests.
• Getting more sun makes people have higher amounts of vitamin D.

Complex Hypothesis Example

• How rich you are, how easy it is to get education and healthcare greatly affects the number of years people live.
• A new medicine’s success relies on the amount used, how old a person is who takes it and their genes.

Directional Hypothesis Example

• Drinking more sweet drinks is linked to a higher body weight score.
• Too much stress makes people less productive at work.

Non-directional Hypothesis Example

• Drinking caffeine can affect how well you sleep.
• People often like different kinds of music based on their gender.
• The average test scores of Group A and Group B are not much different.
• There is no connection between using a certain fertilizer and how much it helps crops grow.

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha)

• Patients on Diet A have much different cholesterol levels than those following Diet B.
• Exposure to a certain type of light can change how plants grow compared to normal sunlight.
• The average smarts score of kids in a certain school area is 100.
• The usual time it takes to finish a job using Method A is the same as with Method B.
• Having more kids go to early learning classes helps them do better in school when they get older.
• Using specific ways of talking affects how much customers get involved in marketing activities.
• Regular exercise helps to lower the chances of heart disease.
• Going to school more can help people make more money.
• Playing violent video games makes teens more likely to act aggressively.
• Less clean air directly impacts breathing health in city populations.

Functions of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have many important jobs in the process of scientific research. Here are the key functions of hypotheses:

• Guiding Research: Hypotheses give a clear and exact way for research. They act like guides, showing the predicted connections or results that scientists want to study.
• Formulating Research Questions: Research questions often create guesses. They assist in changing big questions into particular, checkable things. They guide what the study should be focused on.
• Setting Clear Objectives: Hypotheses set the goals of a study by saying what connections between variables should be found. They set the targets that scientists try to reach with their studies.
• Testing Predictions: Theories guess what will happen in experiments or observations. By doing tests in a planned way, scientists can check if what they see matches the guesses made by their ideas.
• Providing Structure: Theories give structure to the study process by arranging thoughts and ideas. They aid scientists in thinking about connections between things and plan experiments to match.
• Focusing Investigations: Hypotheses help scientists focus on certain parts of their study question by clearly saying what they expect links or results to be. This focus makes the study work better.
• Facilitating Communication: Theories help scientists talk to each other effectively. Clearly made guesses help scientists to tell others what they plan, how they will do it and the results expected. This explains things well with colleagues in a wide range of audiences.
• Generating Testable Statements: A good guess can be checked, which means it can be looked at carefully or tested by doing experiments. This feature makes sure that guesses add to the real information used in science knowledge.
• Promoting Objectivity: Guesses give a clear reason for study that helps guide the process while reducing personal bias. They motivate scientists to use facts and data as proofs or disprovals for their proposed answers.
• Driving Scientific Progress: Making, trying out and adjusting ideas is a cycle. Even if a guess is proven right or wrong, the information learned helps to grow knowledge in one specific area.

How Hypothesis help in Scientific Research?

Researchers use hypotheses to put down their thoughts directing how the experiment would take place. Following are the steps that are involved in the scientific method:

• Initiating Investigations: Hypotheses are the beginning of science research. They come from watching, knowing what’s already known or asking questions. This makes scientists make certain explanations that need to be checked with tests.
• Formulating Research Questions: Ideas usually come from bigger questions in study. They help scientists make these questions more exact and testable, guiding the study’s main point.
• Setting Clear Objectives: Hypotheses set the goals of a study by stating what we think will happen between different things. They set the goals that scientists want to reach by doing their studies.
• Designing Experiments and Studies: Assumptions help plan experiments and watchful studies. They assist scientists in knowing what factors to measure, the techniques they will use and gather data for a proposed reason.
• Testing Predictions: Ideas guess what will happen in experiments or observations. By checking these guesses carefully, scientists can see if the seen results match up with what was predicted in each hypothesis.
• Analysis and Interpretation of Data: Hypotheses give us a way to study and make sense of information. Researchers look at what they found and see if it matches the guesses made in their theories. They decide if the proof backs up or disagrees with these suggested reasons why things are happening as expected.
• Encouraging Objectivity: Hypotheses help make things fair by making sure scientists use facts and information to either agree or disagree with their suggested reasons. They lessen personal preferences by needing proof from experience.
• Iterative Process: People either agree or disagree with guesses, but they still help the ongoing process of science. Findings from testing ideas make us ask new questions, improve those ideas and do more tests. It keeps going on in the work of science to keep learning things.

People Also View:

Mathematics Maths Formulas Branches of Mathematics

Summary – Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a testable statement serving as an initial explanation for phenomena, based on observations, theories, or existing knowledge. It acts as a guiding light for scientific research, proposing potential relationships between variables that can be empirically tested through experiments and observations. The hypothesis must be specific, testable, falsifiable, and grounded in prior research or observation, laying out a predictive, if-then scenario that details a cause-and-effect relationship. It originates from various sources including existing theories, observations, previous research, and even personal curiosity, leading to different types, such as simple, complex, directional, non-directional, null, and alternative hypotheses, each serving distinct roles in research methodology. The hypothesis not only guides the research process by shaping objectives and designing experiments but also facilitates objective analysis and interpretation of data, ultimately driving scientific progress through a cycle of testing, validation, and refinement.

FAQs on Hypothesis

What is a hypothesis.

A guess is a possible explanation or forecast that can be checked by doing research and experiments.

What are Components of a Hypothesis?

The components of a Hypothesis are Independent Variable, Dependent Variable, Relationship between Variables, Directionality etc.

What makes a Good Hypothesis?

Testability, Falsifiability, Clarity and Precision, Relevance are some parameters that makes a Good Hypothesis

Can a Hypothesis be Proven True?

You cannot prove conclusively that most hypotheses are true because it’s generally impossible to examine all possible cases for exceptions that would disprove them.

How are Hypotheses Tested?

Hypothesis testing is used to assess the plausibility of a hypothesis by using sample data

Can Hypotheses change during Research?

Yes, you can change or improve your ideas based on new information discovered during the research process.

What is the Role of a Hypothesis in Scientific Research?

Hypotheses are used to support scientific research and bring about advancements in knowledge.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Geeks Premier League 2023
• Maths-Class-12
• Geeks Premier League
• Mathematics
• School Learning
• 10 Ways to Use Microsoft OneNote for Note-Taking
• 10 Best Yellow.ai Alternatives & Competitors in 2024
• 10 Best Online Collaboration Tools 2024
• 10 Best Autodesk Maya Alternatives for 3D Animation and Modeling in 2024
• 30 OOPs Interview Questions and Answers (2024)

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?