HYPOTHESIS TESTING

CONCERNING VARIANCES
To test the hypothesis concerning the uniformity of a population or in
comparing the uniformity of a population with that of the second population,
use either Chi-Square test or f-test.

Let us first consider the problem of testing the null hypothesis H0 that the
population variance σ2 equals a specified value against one of the usual
alternatives σ2 < , σ2 > , or σ2 ≠.

Assuming that the distribution of the population being sampled is normal, the
chi-squared value for testing σ2 = is given by

, where: n = sample size

= sample variance

= the value of σ2 given by Ho

 If H0 is true, χ2 is a value of the chi-square distribution with df = n − 1 degrees of freedom. Hence, for a
two-tailed test at the α-level of significance, the critical region is χ2 < χ2 1−α/2 or χ2 > χ2α/2. For the one-
sided alternative σ2 < , the critical region is χ2 < χ21−α, and for the one-sided alternative σ2 > , the critical
region is χ2 > χ2α.

Steps in Hypothesis Testing about a Population Variance

1. State the null hypothesis, Ho that σ2 =
2. Choose an appropriate Hi from one of the alternatives σ 2 < , σ2 > , or σ2 ≠.
3. Choose a significance level of size α. Determine whether the test is 1-tailed or 2-tailed.
4. Select the appropriate test statistics and establish the critical region.
5. Compute the value of the test statistics from the sample data.
6. Decision: Reject Ho if the test statistics has a value in the critical region, otherwise, do not reject Ho .
Example:
A manufacturer of car batteries claims that the life of the company’s batteries is approximately
normally distributed with a standard deviation equal to 0.9 year. If a random sample of 10 of these
batteries has a standard deviation of 1.2 years, do you think that σ > 0.9 year? Use a 0.05 level of
significance.
Solution:
1. H0: σ2 = 0.81.
2. 2. H1: σ2 > 0.81.
3. 3. α = 0.05.
4. 4. Critical region: From Figure 10.19 we see that the null hypothesis is rejected when χ2 > 16.919,
where χ2 = (n−1)s2 / , with df = 9 degrees of freedom.
5. Computations: s2 = 1.44, n = 10, and χ2 = (9)(1.44)/ 0.81 = 16.0, P ≈ 0.07.
6. Decision: The χ2-statistic is not significant at the 0.05 level. However, based on the P-value 0.07,
there is evidence that σ > 0.9.

***Computing p-value, please refer to http://

courses.atlas.illinois.edu/spring2016/STAT/STAT200/pnormal.html
Now let us consider the problem of testing the equality of the variances and of two populations. That is, we
shall test the null hypothesis H0 that = against one of the usual alternatives

For independent random samples of sizes n1 and n2, respectively, from the two populations, the f-value for
testing = is the ratio

where and are the variances computed from the two samples.

If the two populations are approximately normally distributed and the null hypothesis is true, the ratio

is a value of the F-distribution with df1 = n1 − 1 and df2 = n2 − 1 degrees of freedom. Therefore, the
critical regions of size α corresponding to the one-sided alternatives < and > are, respectively, f< f 1-α
(df1, df2). f> fα (df1, df2). For the two-sided alternative ≠ , the critical region is
Example:
An experiment was performed to compare the abrasive wear of two different laminated materials. Twelve
pieces of material 1 were tested by exposing each piece to a machine measuring wear. Ten pieces of material 2
were similarly tested. In each case, the depth of wear was observed. The samples of material 1 gave an average
(coded) wear of 85 units with a sample standard deviation of 4, while the samples of material 2 gave an average
of 81 with a sample standard deviation of 5. In testing for the difference in the abrasive wear of these two
materials, we assumed that the two unknown population variances were equal. Were we justified in making this
assumption? Use a 0.10 level of significance.
Solution: Let σ2 1 and σ2 2 be the population variances for the abrasive wear of material 1 and material 2,
respectively.
1. H0: =
2. Hi:
3. α = 0.10.
4. Critical region: From Figure 10.20, we see that f0.05(11, 9) = 3.11, and, we find

Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected when f < 0.34 or f > 3.11, where with df1 = 11 and
df2 = 9 degrees of freedom.
5. Computations :
6. Decision: Do not reject H0. Conclude that there is insufficient evidence that the variances differ.
TEST CONCERNING PROPORTIONS
To test the hypotheses concerning proportions, we use the normal-curve approximation and we proceed
as follows:

Case 1: Comparing a sample proportion and a population proportion

1. Ho: p = po
Hi: Alternatives are p < po , p > po , or p≠ po
2. Choose a level of significance equal to α, determine whether test is 1-tailed or 2-tailed
3. Select the appropriate test statistics and establish the critical region.
z < zα for the alternative p < po
z > zα for the alternative p > po
z < -zα/2 and z > zα/2 for the alternative p≠ po
4. Compute the value of the test statistic from the sample data. Find x from a sample of size n, then
compute where: = proportion of the population

n = number of sample cases

x = number of successes
5. Decision: Reject Ho if the test statistic has a value in the critical region, otherwise, do not reject H o
Case 2: Testing the difference between two proportions

1. Ho: p1 = p2
Hi: Alternatives are p1 < p2, p1 > p2, or p1 ≠ p2

2. Choose a level of significance equal to α, determine whether test is 1-tailed or 2-tailed

3. Select the appropriate test statistics and establish the critical region.
z < zα for the alternative p1 < p2
z > zα for the alternative p1 > p2
z < -zα/2 and z > zα/2 for the alternative p1 ≠ p2

4. Computations:
where: p1 = proportion of the 1st sample
p2 = proportion of the 2nd sample
q1 = 1 - p 1 , q2 = 1 - p 2
n1 and n2 = number of items in the 1st and 2nd sample, respectively
Pooling the data from both samples, the pooled estimate of the proportion is where x1 and x2 are the
number between two successes in each of the two samples.
The Z value for testing p1 = p2 becomes

where:

6. Decision: Reject Ho if the test statistic has a value in the critical region, otherwise, do not reject H o
Example:
A company prescribed drug on the market for relieving nervous tension is believed to be only
60% effective. Experimental results with a new drug administered to a random sample of 100 adults
who were suffering from nervous tension showed that 70 received relief. Is this sufficient evidence to
conclude that the new drug is superior to the one commonly prescribed? Use a 0.05 level of
significance.

Solution:
1. Ho: p = 0.6
Hi: p > 0.6
2. α = 0.05, 1-tailed test
3. CR: z > 1.645
4. Computations:
x = 70, n = 100 , npo = 100 (0.6) = 60

5. Since Z computed is greater than critical Z, reject Ho and conclude that the new drug is superior
Example:
To determine if there is a significant difference in the proportion of city voters and provincial voters
whether a civic center will be constructed, an election is taken. If 120 of 200 city voters favor the proposal
and 240 of 500 provincial voters favor it, would you agree that the proportion of city voters favoring the
proposal is higher than the proportion of provincial voters? Use a 0.05 LS.
Solution:
1. Ho: p1 = p2
Hi: p1 > p2
2. α = 0.05, 1-tailed test
3. CR: z > 1.645
4. Computations:

5. Since Z computed is greater than critical Z, reject Ho and conclude the proportion of city voters favoring
the proposal is higher than the proportion of provincial voters favoring the proposal.