Sierra Acai Company
Sierra Acai Company
Open 7 Days a Week
MonaVie Independent Distributor
Distributor Training
Shop Online
Enroll Now
Buy Wholesale and maintain an Active status for 2 months and we will refund your $39 Distributor Fee
Friends
Buy Wholesale and maintain an Active status for 2 months and we will refund your $39 Distributor Fee
14-September-2008 18:02:38 - Null hypothesis For the periodical, see Null Hypothesis: The Journal of Unlikely Science. Main article: Statistical hypothesis testing In statistics, a null hypothesis H0 is a hypothesis scenario set up to be nullified, refuted, or rejected 'disproved' statistically in order to support an alternative hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence, in the form of a hypothesis test, indicates otherwise - that is, when the researcher has a certain degree of confidence, usually 95% to 99%, that the data does not support the null hypothesis. It is possible for an experiment to fail to reject the null hypothesis. It is also possible that both the null hypothesis and the alternate hypothesis are rejected if there are more than those two possibilities. In scientific and medical applications, the null hypothesis plays a major role in testing the significance of differences in treatment and control groups. This use, while widespread, is criticized on a number of grounds. The assumption at the outset of the experiment is that no difference exists between the two groups for the variable being compared: this is the null hypothesis in this instance. Other types of null hypotheses may be, for example, that: values in samples from a given population can be modelled using a certain family of statistical distributions. the variability of data in different groups is the same, although they may be centred around different values. The term was coined by the English geneticist and statistician Ronald Fisher. Contents 1 Example 2 Directionality 3 Limitations 4 Controversy 4.1 Straw man 4.2 Bayesian criticism 5 Publication bias 6 References 7 Further reading 8 See also 9 External links Example For example, one may want to compare the test scores of two random samples of men and women, and ask whether or not one group population has a mean score which really is different from the other. A null hypothesis would be that the mean score of the male population was the same as the mean score of the female population: H0 : μ1 = μ2 where: H0 = the null hypothesis μ1 = the mean of population 1, and μ2 = the mean of population 2. Alternatively, the null hypothesis can postulate suggest that the two samples are drawn from the same population, so that the variance and shape of the distributions are equal, as well as the means. Formulation of the null hypothesis is a vital step in testing statistical significance. One can then establish the probability of observing the obtained data or data more different from the prediction of the null hypothesis if the null hypothesis is true. That probability is what is commonly called the significance level of the results. That is, in scientific experimental design, we may predict that a particular factor will produce an effect on our dependent variable - this is our alternative hypothesis. We then consider how often we would expect to observe our experimental results, or results even more extreme, if we were to take many samples from a population where there was no effect i.e. we test against our null hypothesis. If we find that this happens rarely up to, say, 5% of the time, we can conclude that our results support our experimental prediction - we reject our null hypothesis. Directionality In many statements of null hypotheses there is no appearance that these can have a directionality, in that the statement says that values are identical. However, null hypotheses can and do have direction - in many of these instances statistical theory allows the formulation of the test procedure to be simplified so that the test is equivalent to testing for an exact identity. That is, if we formulate a one-tailed alternative hypothesis that application of Drug A will lead to increased growth in patients, the effective null hypothesis remains that application of Drug A will have no effect on growth in patients. It is not merely the opposite of the alternative hypothesis - that is, it is not that application of Drug A will not lead to increased growth in patients. However this does remain the true null hypothesis. To explain why this should be so, it is instructive to consider the nature of the hypotheses outlined above. We are predicting that patients exposed to Drug A will see increased growth compared to a control group who do not receive the drug. That is, H1: μdrug μcontrol, where: μ = the patients' mean growth. The effective null hypothesis is H0: μdrug = μcontrol. The true null hypothesis is HT: μdrug ≤ μcontrol. The reduction occurs because, in order to gauge support for the alternative hypothesis, classical hypothesis testing requires us to calculate how often we would have obtained results as or more extreme than our experimental observations. In order to do this, we need first to define the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis for each possibility included in the null hypothesis and second to ensure that these probabilities are all less than or equal to the quoted significance level of the test. For any reasonable test procedure the largest of all these probabilities will occur on the boundary of the region HT, specifically for the cases included in H0 only. Thus the test procedure can be defined that is the critical values can be defined for testing the null hypothesis HT exactly as if the null hypothesis of interest was the reduced version H0. Note that there are some who argue that the null hypothesis cannot be as general as indicated above: as Fisher, who first coined the term null hypothesis said, the null hypothesis must be exact, that is free of vagueness and ambiguity, because it must supply the basis of the 'problem of distribution,' of which the test of significance is the solution.1 Thus according to this view, the null hypothesis must be numerically exact - it must state that a particular quantity or difference is equal to a particular number. In classical science, it is most typically the statement that there is no effect of a particular treatment; in observations, it is typically that there is no difference between the value of a particular measured variable and that of a prediction. The usefulness of this viewpoint must be queried - one can note that the majority of null hypotheses test in practice do not meet this criterion of being exact. For example, consider the usual test that two means are equal where the true values of the variances are unknown - exact values of the variances are not specified. Most statisticians believe that it is valid to state direction as a part of null hypothesis, or as part of a null hypothesis/alternative hypothesis pair for example see http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A73079.html. The logic is quite simple: if the direction is omitted, then if the null hypothesis is not rejected it is quite confusing to interpret the conclusion. Say, the null is that the population mean = 10, and the one-tailed alternative: mean 10. If the sample evidence obtained through x-bar equals -200 and the corresponding t-test statistic equals -50, what is the conclusion? Not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis? Surely not! But we cannot accept the one-sided alternative in this case. Therefore, to overcome this ambiguity, it is better to include the direction of the effect if the test is one-sided. The statistical theory required to deal with the simple cases dealt with here, and more complicated ones, makes use of the concept of an unbiased test. Limitations A test of a null hypothesis is useful because it sets a limit on the probability of observing a data set as or more extreme than that observed if the null hypothesis is true. In general it is much harder to be precise about the corresponding probability if the alternative hypothesis is true. If experimental observations contradict the prediction of the null hypothesis, it means that either the null hypothesis is false, or the event under observation occurs very improbably. This gives us high confidence in the falsehood of the null hypothesis, which can be improved in proportion to the number of trials conducted. However, accepting the alternative hypothesis only commits us to a difference in observed parameters; it does not prove that the theory or principles that predicted such a difference is true, since it is always possible that the difference could be due to additional factors not recognized by the theory. For example, rejection of a null hypothesis that predicts that the rates of symptom relief in a sample of patients who received a placebo and a sample who received a medicinal drug will be equal allows us to make a non-null statement that the rates differed; it does not prove that the drug relieved the symptoms, though it gives us more confidence in that hypothesis. The formulation, testing, and rejection of null hypotheses is methodologically consistent with the falsifiability model of scientific discovery formulated by Karl Popper and widely believed to apply to most kinds of empirical research. However, concerns regarding the high power of statistical tests to detect differences in large samples have led to suggestions for re-defining the null hypothesis, for example as a hypothesis that an effect falls within a range considered negligible. This is an attempt to address the confusion among non-statisticians between significant and substantial, since large enough samples are likely to be able to indicate differences however minor. The theory underlying the idea of a null hypothesis is closely associated with the frequency theory of probability, in which probabilistic statements can only be made about the relative frequencies of events in arbitrarily large samples. One way in which a failure to reject the null hypothesis is meaningful is in relation to an arbitrarily large population from which the observed sample is supposed to be drawn. A second way in which it is meaningful is from approach where both an experiment and all details of the statistical analysis are decided before doing the experiment. The significance level of a test is then conceptually identical to the probability of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis judged at a pre-experiment stage, where this probability need not be a frequency-based/large-sample one. Controversy Merge arrow It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Statistical hypothesis testing. Discuss Main article: Statistical hypothesis testing#Criticism As with statistical hypothesis testing, the use of null hypothesis testing is criticized on a number of grounds. Straw man Null hypothesis testing is controversial when the alternative hypothesis is suspected to be true at the outset of the experiment, making the null hypothesis the reverse of what the experimenter actually believes; it is put forward as a straw man only to allow the data to contradict it. Many statisticians have pointed out that rejecting the null hypothesis says nothing or very little about the likelihood that the null is true. Under traditional null hypothesis testing, the null is rejected when the conditional probability PData as or more extreme than observed | Null is very small, say 0.05. However, some say researchers are really interested in the probability PNull | Data as actually observed which cannot be inferred from a p-value: some like to present these as inverses of each other but the events Data as or more extreme than observed and Data as actually observed are very different. In some cases, PNull | Data approaches 1 while PData as or more extreme than observed | Null approaches 0,citation needed in other words, we can reject the null when it's virtually certain to be true.citation needed For this and other reasons, Gerd Gigerenzer has called null hypothesis testing mindless statisticscitation needed while Jacob Cohen described it as a ritual conducted to convince ourselves that we have the evidence needed to confirm our theories.citation needed Bayesian criticism Bayesian statisticians normally reject the idea of null hypothesis testing, instead using various techniques in Bayesian inference. Given a prior probability distribution for one or more parameters, sample evidence can be used to generate an updated posterior distribution. In this framework, but not in the null hypothesis testing framework, it is meaningful to make statements of the general form the probability that the true value of the parameter is greater than 0 is p. According to Bayes Theorem, we have: P\textNull | \textData = P\textData | \textNull\fracP\textNullP\textData thus PNull | Data approaches 1 while PData | Null approaches 0 exactly when PNull/PData approaches 1, i.e. for instance when the a priori probability of the null hypothesis, PNull, is also approaching 1, while PData approaches 0: then PData | Null is low because we have extremely unlikely data, but the Null hypothesis is extremely likely to be true. Publication bias Main article: Publication bias In 2002, a group of psychologists launched a new journal dedicated to experimental studies in psychology which support the null hypothesis. The Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis JASNH was founded to address a scientific publishing bias against such articles. 1 According to the ors, other journals and reviewers have exhibited a bias against articles that did not reject the null hypothesis. We plan to change that by offering an outlet for experiments that do not reach the traditional significance levels p 0.05. Thus, reducing the file drawer problem, and reducing the bias in psychological literature. Without such a resource researchers could be wasting their time examining empirical questions that have already been examined. We collect these articles and provide them to the scientific community free of cost. The File Drawer problem is a problem that exists due to the fact that academics tend not to publish results that indicate the null hypothesis could not be rejected. This does not mean that the relationship they were looking for did not exist, but it means they couldn't prove it. Even though these papers can often be interesting, they tend to end up unpublished, in file drawers. Ioannidis has inventoried factors that should alert readers to risks of publication bias.2 References ^ Fisher, R.A. 1966. The design of experiments. 8th ion. Hafner:Edinburgh. ^ Ioannidis J 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2 8: e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMID 16060722. Further reading Cohen, Jacob. 'The earth is round p .05', American Psychologist, Vol 4912, Dec 1994. pp. 997-1003. See also Statistics portal Counternull Dream argument Straw man P-value Publication bias Statistical hypothesis testing Null Hypothesis: The Journal of Unlikely Science External links A Guide to Understanding the Null Hypothesis References for arguments for and against null hypothesis significance testing HyperStat Online: Null hypothesis v d e Statistics Experimental design Design of experiments - Sampling - Stratified sampling - Replication - Blocking - Statistical power - Sample size Descriptive statistics Continuous data Mean Arithmetic, Geometric, Harmonic - Median - Mode - Range - Variance - Standard deviation - Skewness - Kurtosis - Effect size Categorical data Frequency - Contingency table Inferential statistics Bayesian inference - Hypothesis testing - Significance - Power - Null hypothesis/Alternative hypothesis/Error - Z-test - Student's t-test - Chi-square test - F-test - P-value - Interval estimation - Maximum likelihood - Analysis of variance - Meta-analysis - Confidence interval Survival analysis Survival function - Kaplan-Meier - Logrank test - Failure rate - Proportional hazards models Correlation Confounding variable - Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient - Rank correlation Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Kendall tau rank correlation coefficient Regression analysis Linear regression - Nonlinear regression - Logistic regression - Maximum Likelihood Estimation Statistical graphics Bar chart - Biplot - Box plot - Control chart - Histogram - Q-Q plot - Run chart - Scatterplot - Stemplot Category · Project · Portal · List of topics Retrieved from http://en..org/wiki/Null_hypothesis Categories: Experimental design | Hypothesis testing | Statistical inferenceHidden categories: Articles to be merged since August 2008 | All articles with statements | Articles with statements since August 2008 Views Article Discussion this page History Personal tools Log in / create account Navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Search Go Search Interaction Community portal Recent changes Contact Donate to Help Toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this page Languages Deutsch العربية Español Ù?ارسی Français í•œêµì–´ Italiano Nederlands Português РуÑ?Ñ?кий Simple English Suomi Svenska This page was last modified on 12 September 2008, at 21:43
39 Reasons to Drink Acai Juice Every Day
What is MonaVie - Watch the 8-minute video
Discovering MonaVie Video
The Power of You Video
Effects of MonaVie Active on Antioxidant Capacity in Humans
Log into your Wholesale MonaVie Account
So many of us do not eat a balanced diet, get enough sleep, have too much stress, or are impacted with toxins and pollutants. Drinking 2 ounces of MonaVie twice a day will help your body detoxify as well as build your immune system. Its the smartest thing you can do for yourself, so start today. Buying MonaVie through our company guarantees you support 7 days a week and, if you would like to share MonaVie with your family and friends we will guide you from start to finish.
1. Click on Enroll Now (30 - 55% off retail price)
2. Pay $39 for your Wholesale ID number.
3. NO minimum order required.
4. MonaVie is delivered to your door in 3 to 5 days.