Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error, or a false positive, is the erroneous rejection of a true null hypothesis. A type II error, or a false negative, is the erroneous failure in bringing about appropriate rejection of a false null hypothesis. [1] Type I errors can be thought of as errors of commission, in which the status quo is ...
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 ...
In statistical hypothesis testing, there are various notions of so-called type III errors (or errors of the third kind), and sometimes type IV errors or higher, by analogy with the type I and type II errors of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson. Fundamentally, type III errors occur when researchers provide the right answer to the wrong question, i.e ...
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 ...
Neyman–Pearson lemma [5] — Existence:. If a hypothesis test satisfies condition, then it is a uniformly most powerful (UMP) test in the set of level tests.. Uniqueness: If there exists a hypothesis test that satisfies condition, with >, then every UMP test in the set of level tests satisfies condition with the same .
The null hypothesis of this chi-squared test is homoscedasticity, and the alternative hypothesis would indicate heteroscedasticity. Since the Breusch–Pagan test is sensitive to departures from normality or small sample sizes, the Koenker–Bassett or 'generalized Breusch–Pagan' test is commonly used instead.
Testing a hypothesis suggested by the data can very easily result in false positives (type I errors). If one looks long enough and in enough different places, eventually data can be found to support any hypothesis. Yet, these positive data do not by themselves constitute evidence that the hypothesis is correct. The negative test data that were ...