Advanced Statistics and Quantitative Techniques

Testing Hypothesis
(z-Test & t-Test)

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Associate Professor DR. Christopher Delino
Testing Hypothesis
 1. Formulate the Null (Ho) hypothesis
and Alternative (Ha) hypothesis.
 2. Select the level of Significance (α).
 3. Determine the test statistic to be used.
 4. Define the Area of Rejection.
 5. Compute for the values of the
Statistical Test.
 6. Draw conclusion.
1. Formulate the Null (Ho) hypothesis
and Alternative (Ha) hypothesis.
 Title: Alternative Method and
Traditional Method in Finding Blood
Pressure. A Comparative Study.
 Ho: There is no significant difference
between the results from using In symbols
alternative method and traditional Ho: µ1 = µ2
method in finding blood pressure.
 Ha: There is a significant difference
between the results from using In symbols
alternative method and traditional Ha: µ1 ≠ µ2
method in finding blood pressure.
If Ha then Ho Directional – If Ha is >, <, ≥, or ≤.
(One-tailed test)
≠ =
Non-directional – If Ha is ≠. (Two-
> ≤ tailed test)

< ≥ Examples:
If Ha : µ ≠ 234; then it is
≤ > nondirectional

≥ < If Ha: µ1 > µ2 ; then it is directional

Other Example
 Ho: Alternative Method is not better In symbols
than the traditional method…. Ho: µ1 < µ2
 Ha: Alternative Method is better than In symbols
the traditional method…. Ha: µ1 > µ2

 Ho: Temperature in locale A is not In symbols

less than locale B…. Ho: µ1 >µ2
 Ha: Temperature in locale A is less In symbols
than locale B…. Ha: µ1 < µ2
2. Select the level of Significance (α).

 Critical/Tabular Values of z

α One-tailed Two-tailed
test test
0.10 ±1.28 ±1.645
0.05 ±1.645 ±1.96
0.01 ±2.33 ±2.58
3. Determine the test statistic to be used.
Parametric and Nonparametric Tests
 Parametric Test – Rely on
assumptions about the shape of
the distribution, assume Normal Normal
Distribution in the underlying Distribution
population and about the form of means being
parameters (mean, sd) of SYMMETRIC
assumed distribution. and
 Nonparametric Tests – Rely on MESOKURTIC
no or few assumptions about the at the same time
shape or parameters of the
population distribution from which
the sample was drawn.
4. Define the Area of Rejection.
5. Compute for the values of the
Statistical Test.
6. Draw conclusion.

 Either you ACCEPT or REJECT the null (Ho)

hypothesis.

 Note: If you Accept Ho – REJECT Ha

 If you Reject Ho – ACCEPT Ha
Example.1.
 A manufacturer claims that the average Given:
tensile strength of thread A exceeds
the average tensile strength of thread Type A
B. To test this claim, 50 pieces of each = 86.7
type of thread are tested under similar SD = 6.28
conditions. Type A thread had an n = 50
average tensile strength of 86.7
kilograms with a standard deviation of
6.28 kilograms, while type B thread Type B
had an average tensile strength of 77.8 = 77.8
kilograms with a standard deviation of SD = 5.61
5.61 kilograms. Test the
manufacturer’s claim using 5% level of n = 50
significance. (Assuming Normal
Distribution) Alpha = 5%
 Thread A does not significantly
Solutions: exceeds the tensile strength of
 Ho: Thread B

Thread A does significantly

 Ha: exceeds the tensile strength of
Thread B
 Alpha: 5%
 Tail: 1 tailed test x1  x 2
z
 Test Statistic: z-Test  12  22
 Critical Value: +1.645 7.47 
n1 n2
 Area of Rejection
86.7  77.8

(6.28) 2 (5.61) 2

50 50
 7.47 Decision:
1.645 REJECT Ho
Analysis:
Table 1. Comparison of Tensile Strength of Thread A and
Thread B
Thread Mean Diff CV Comp Decision Remark
(α=5%) z
A 86.7 8.9 1.645 7.47 Reject Significant
B 77.8 Ho
Table 1 presents the comparison of tensile strength of
Thread A and Thread B. Based on the table, a difference of
8.9 between the average tensile strength of Thread A
(x=86.7) and Thread B (x=77.8), is proven statistically
significant since, the computed z of 7.47 is greater than the
critical value of 1.645 at 5% level of significance. Thus,
Thread A exceeds the tensile strength of Thread B. With
the results it is implied that Thread A is ………..
Moreover, it supports the study of Ruiz (2015), he
claimed that………………………
Example.2.
 Proptoporphyrin levels were measured in two
sample subjects. Sample 1 consisted of 35
adult male alcoholics with ring sideroblast in
the bone marrow. Sample 2 consisted of 40
apparently healthy adult non-alcoholic males.
 Is there a significant difference between the
protoporphyrin levels in the alcoholic
population and non-alcholic population? Given
the gathered data? Using 1% level of
significance. (Assuming Normal Distribution)
Given:
50 43 33 54 55 30 36 43 33 56
34 42 35 45 46 45 39 34 34 33
35 35 34 35 32
36 45 35 43 48
45 45 33 31 30
43 34 36 34 43
33 56 33 35 30
49 45 45 30 34
36 54 35 37 31
31 30 38 35 33
37 44 37 47 34
35 40 36 50 36 34 46 38 45 35
Alcoholics Non-Alcoholics
 Solutions: There is no significant difference
between the protoporphyrin levels in
 Ho: the alcoholic population and non-
alcholic population.
 Ha: There is a significant difference
between the protoporphyrin levels in
 Alpha: 1%
the alcoholic population and non-
 Tail: 2 tailed test
alcholic population.
 Test Statistic: z-Test
 Critical Value: +2.58
 Area of Rejection

-2.58 2.58
Click DATA and look for DATA ANALYSIS
 Click Excel Icon

Click Add-Ins

Choose Analysis Tool Pak, then click

ok

Click Excel Option

Choose Analysis Tool Pak, then click
Go
Solutions:
 Ho: Ha:

 Alpha: 1%
 Tail: 2 tailed test
 Test Statistic: z-Test
 Critical Value: +2.58
 Area of Rejection 1.36

Decision:
ACCEPT Ho
-2.58 2.58
Analysis:
Table 2. Comparison of Protoporphyrin Level between
Alcoholics and Non-Alcoholics Population
Variable Mean Diff CV Comp Decision Remark
α=1% z
Alcoholic 40.03 2.15 2.58 1.36 Accept Not
Non- 37.88 Ho Significant
Alcoholic
Table 2 presents the comparison of protoporphyrin level
between alcoholics and non-alcoholics population . Based
on the table, a difference of 2.15 between the average
protoporphyrin level of alcoholics (x=40.03) and Non-
Alcoholics (x=37.88), is proven statistically not significant
since, the computed z of 1.34 is within the critical value of
+2.58 at 1% level of significance. Thus, There is no
significant difference between the protoporphyrin levels in
the alcoholics population and non-alcoholics population.
T-test - It is a parametric test used to test significant
difference of small sample size.

 Paired t-Test  Independent t-Test

 Determine whether the  A t-test asks whether a
mean of the differences
between two paired
samples differs from 0 (or
a target value)
 The paired t-test
calculates the difference
within each before-and-
after pair of
measurements,
determines the mean of
these changes, and
reports whether this
mean of the differences
is statistically significant
difference between two
groups’ averages is unlikely to
have occurred because of
random chance in sample
selection. A difference is more
likely to be meaningful and
“real” if
(1) the difference between the
averages is large,
(2) the sample size is large,
and
(3) responses are consistently
close to the average values
and not widely spread out
T-test
 Paired t-Test  Independent t-Test
Example.1

Using 5% alpha
 Solutions: The use of the module does not
 Ho: leads to improvement.

The use of the module leads to

 Ha: improvement.
 Alpha: 5%
 Tail: 1 tailed test 3.231
 Test Statistic: t-Test
 Critical Value: +1.729
 Area of Rejection
Decision:
REJECT Ho

1.729
Analysis:
Table 1. Comparison of Achievement Score of Using
Modules
Test Mean Diff CV Comp Decision Remark
(α=5%) t
Pre 18.4 2.05 1.729 3.231 Reject Significant
Post 20.5 Ho
Table 1 presents the comparison of the pretest and posttest
result in using a module. Based on the table, a difference
of 2.05 between the average achievement score of pretest
(x=18.4) and posttest (x=20.5), is proven statistically
significant since, the computed t of 3.231 is greater than
the critical value of 1.729 at 5% level of significance. Thus,
there is strong evidenced that on average, the module leads
to the improvement of achievement. With the results it is
implied that the use of Module……….. Moreover, it
supports the study of Ruiz (2015), he claimed
Example.2
 A course in Mathematics is taught to 12
students by a usual strategy. A second group
of 10 students was given the same course by
means of strategy x. At the end of the
semester the same examination was given to
each group, below were the results. Test the
hypothesis using 0.01 level of significance.
Usual 82 83 80 81 82 80 82 81 83 82 80 83

Strategy 83 83 84 80 85 87 86 85 83 82
x
 Solutions: There is no significant difference… .
 Ho: There is a significant difference
between the achievements of
using usual strategy and strategy
 Ha: x.
 Alpha: 1%
 Tail: 2 tailed test
 Test Statistic: t-Test
 Critical Value: +2.845
 Area of Rejection
-3.19

-2.845
2.845 Decision:
ACCEPT Ho
Analysis: Table 2. Comparison of Mean Scores of Using
Conventional and Programmed Materials
Method Mean Diff CV Comp Decision Remark
(α=5%) t
Usual 81.58 2.22 +2.84 -3.19 Accept Not
Strategy 5 Ho Significant
Strategy 83.80
X

Table 2 presents the comparison of mean scores of using usual

and strategy x. Based on the table, a difference of 2.22 between
the average mean score of usual (x=81.58) and strategy X
(x=83.80), is proven statistically significant since, the computed t
of -3.19 is less than the critical value of -2.845 at 1% level of
significance. Thus, there is a significant difference between the
achievements of using usual strategy and strategy x. The results
show a strong evidenced that teaching strategy used has an
effect towards the achievements of students. With the results it
is implied that the use of Module….