Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error, or a false positive, is the rejection of the null hypothesis when it is actually true. A type II error, or a false negative, is the failure to reject a null hypothesis that is actually false. [1] Type I error: an innocent person may be convicted. Type II error: a guilty person may be not convicted.
The specificity of the test is equal to 1 minus the false positive rate. In statistical hypothesis testing, this fraction is given the Greek letter α, and 1 − α is defined as the specificity of the test. Increasing the specificity of the test lowers the probability of type I errors, but may raise the probability of type II errors (false ...
An example of Neyman–Pearson hypothesis testing (or null hypothesis statistical significance testing) can be made by a change to the radioactive suitcase example. If the "suitcase" is actually a shielded container for the transportation of radioactive material, then a test might be used to select among three hypotheses: no radioactive source ...
A hypothesis is rejected at level α if and only if its adjusted p-value is less than α. In the earlier example using equal weights, the adjusted p-values are 0.03, 0.06, 0.06, and 0.02. This is another way to see that using α = 0.05, only hypotheses one and four are rejected by this procedure.
For a Type I error, it is shown as α (alpha) and is known as the size of the test and is 1 minus the specificity of the test. This quantity is sometimes referred to as the confidence of the test, or the level of significance (LOS) of the test. For a Type II error, it is shown as β (beta) and is 1 minus the power or 1 minus the sensitivity of ...
In null-hypothesis significance testing, the p-value [note 1] is the probability of obtaining test results at least as extreme as the result actually observed, under the assumption that the null hypothesis is correct. [2] [3] A very small p-value means that such an extreme observed outcome would be very unlikely under the null hypothesis.
In 1970, L. A. Marascuilo and J. R. Levin proposed a "fourth kind of error" – a "type IV error" – which they defined in a Mosteller-like manner as being the mistake of "the incorrect interpretation of a correctly rejected hypothesis"; which, they suggested, was the equivalent of "a physician's correct diagnosis of an ailment followed by the ...
For example, if one test is performed at the 5% level and the corresponding null hypothesis is true, there is only a 5% risk of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis. However, if 100 tests are each conducted at the 5% level and all corresponding null hypotheses are true, the expected number of incorrect rejections (also known as false ...