Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Equivalence of Hypothesis Test and Confidence Interval Two different simple random samples are drawn from two different populations. The first sample consists of 20 people with 10 having a common attribute. The second sample consists of 2000 people with 1404 of them having the same common attribute. Compare the results from a hypothesis test of \({p_1} = {p_2}\) (with a 0.05 significance level) and a 95% confidence interval estimate of \({p_1} - {p_2}\).

Short Answer

Expert verified

Using the hypothesis test method, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the two population proportions are equal.

Using the confidence interval method, the95% confidence interval estimate for the difference in the two proportions is\(\left( { - 0.4221\,\,,\:\,0.0181} \right)\). Since the value of 0 is included, it is said thatthere is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the two population proportions are equal.

The conclusions of the claim are different for the two methods.

Step by step solution

01

Given information

In a sample consisting of 20 people, 10 possess a given attribute. In another sample of 2000 people, 1404 people possess the attribute.

02

Describe the Hypotheses

It is claimed that the proportion of people having the attribute corresponding to the first population is equal to the proportion of people having the attribute corresponding to the second population.

The following hypotheses are set up:

Null Hypothesis:The proportion of people having the attribute corresponding to the first population is equal to the proportion of people having the attribute corresponding to the second population.

\({H_0}:{p_1} = {p_2}\)

Alternative Hypothesis:The proportion of people having the attribute corresponding to the first population is not equal to the proportion of people having the attribute corresponding to the second population.

\({H_1}:{p_1} \ne {p_2}\)

The test is two-tailed.

03

Find the important values

Here,\({n_1}\)is the sample size for the first sample and\({n_2}\)is the sample size for the second sample.

Thus,\({n_1}\)is equal to 20 and\({n_2}\)is equal to 2000.

Let \({\hat p_1}\) denote the sampleproportion of people having the attribute in the first sample.\(\begin{array}{c}{{{\rm{\hat p}}}_{\rm{1}}} = \frac{{10}}{{20}}\\ = 0.5\end{array}\)

Let\({\hat p_2}\) denote the sampleproportionof people having the attribute in the second sample.

\(\begin{array}{c}{{\hat p}_2} = \frac{{1404}}{{2000}}\\ = 0.702\end{array}\)

The value of the pooled proportion is calculated as follows:

\(\begin{array}{c}\bar p = \frac{{\left( {{x_1} + {x_2}} \right)}}{{\left( {{n_1} + {n_2}} \right)}}\,\\ = \frac{{\left( {10 + 1404} \right)}}{{\left( {20 + 2000} \right)}}\\ = 0.7\end{array}\)

\(\begin{array}{c}\bar q = 1 - \bar p\\ = 1 - 0.7\\ = 0.3\end{array}\)

04

Find the test statistic

The value of the test statistic is computed as shown below:

\(\begin{array}{c}z = \frac{{\left( {{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}} \right) - \left( {{p_1} - {p_2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\left( {\frac{{\bar p\bar q}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{\bar p\bar q}}{{{n_2}}}} \right)} }}\\ = \frac{{\left( {0.5 - 0.702} \right) - 0}}{{\sqrt {\left( {\frac{{0.7 \times 0.3}}{{20}} + \frac{{0.7 \times 0.3}}{{2000}}} \right)} }}\\ = - 1.962\end{array}\)

Thus, the value of the test statistic is -1.962.

Referring to the standard normal distribution table, the critical values of z corresponding to\(\alpha = 0.05\)for a two-tailed test are -1.96 and 1.96.

Referring to the standard normal distribution table, the corresponding p-value is equal to 0.0498.

Since the p-value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected.

There is enough evidence to reject the claim that the two population proportions are equal.

05

Find the confidence interval

The general formula for confidence interval estimate of the difference in the two proportions is written below:

\({\rm{Confidence}}\,\,{\rm{Interval}} = \left( {\left( {{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}} \right) - E\,\,,\,\,\left( {{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}} \right) + E} \right)\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,...\left( 1 \right)\)\(\)

The margin of error (E) has the following expression:

\(E = {z_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}} \times \sqrt {\left( {\frac{{{{\hat p}_1} \times {{\hat q}_1}}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{{{\hat p}_2} \times {{\hat q}_2}}}{{{n_2}}}} \right)} \)

For computing the confidence interval, first find the critical value\({z_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}}\).

The confidence level is 95%; thus, the value of the level of significance for the confidence interval becomes\(\alpha = 0.05\).

Hence,

\(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\alpha }{2} = \frac{{0.05}}{2}\\ = 0.025\end{array}\)

The value of\({z_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}}\)from the standard normal table is equal to 1.96.

Now, the margin of error (E) is equal to:

\(\begin{array}{c}E = {z_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}} \times \sqrt {\left( {\frac{{{{\hat p}_1} \times {{\hat q}_1}}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{{{\hat p}_2} \times {{\hat q}_2}}}{{{n_2}}}} \right)} \\ = 1.96 \times \sqrt {\left( {\frac{{0.5 \times 0.5}}{{20}} + \frac{{0.704 \times 0.298}}{{2000}}} \right)} \\ = 0.2200\end{array}\)

Substitute the value of E in equation (1) as follows:

\(\begin{array}{c}{\rm{Confidence}}\,\,{\rm{Interval}} = \left( {\left( {{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}} \right) - E\,\,,\,\,\left( {{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}} \right) + E} \right)\\ = \left( {\left( {0.5 - 0.702} \right) - 0.2200\,\,,\,\,\left( {0.5 - 0.702} \right) + 0.2200} \right)\\ = \left( { - 0.4220\,\,,\:\,0.0180} \right)\end{array}\)

Thus, the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two proportions is\(\left( { - 0.4220\,\,,\:\,0.0180} \right)\).

The above interval contains the value 0. This implies that the difference in the two proportions can be equal to 0. In other words, the two population proportions have a possibility to be equal.

Thus, there is not enough evidence to reject the claim that the two population proportions are equal.

06

Comparison

It can be observed that the conclusion using the p-value method is different from the conclusion obtained using the confidence interval method.

Thus, it can be said that the hypothesis test method and the confidence interval method are not always equivalent when testing the difference between the two population proportions.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

In Exercises 5โ€“20, assume that the two samples are independent simple random samples selected from normally distributed populations, and do not assume that the population standard deviations are equal. (Note: Answers in Appendix D include technology answers based on Formula 9-1 along with โ€œTableโ€ answers based on Table A-3 with df equal to the smaller of\({n_1} - 1\)and\({n_2} - 1\).) Car and Taxi Ages When the author visited Dublin, Ireland (home of Guinness Brewery employee William Gosset, who first developed the t distribution), he recorded the ages of randomly selected passenger cars and randomly selected taxis. The ages can be found from the license plates. (There is no end to the fun of traveling with the author.) The ages (in years) are listed below. We might expect that taxis would be newer, so test the claim that the mean age of cars is greater than the mean age of taxis.

Car

Ages

4

0

8

11

14

3

4

4

3

5

8

3

3

7

4

6

6

1

8

2

15

11

4

1

1

8

Taxi Ages

8

8

0

3

8

4

3

3

6

11

7

7

6

9

5

10

8

4

3

4

Verifying requirements in the largest clinical trial ever conducted, 401,974 children were randomly assigned to two groups. The treatment group considered of 201,229 children given the sulk vaccine for polio, and 33 of those children developed polio. The other 200,745 children were given a placebo, and 115 of those children developed polio. If we want to use the methods of this section to test the claim that the rate of polio is less for children given the sulk vaccine, are the requirements for a hypothesis test satisfied? Explain.

Testing Claims About Proportions. In Exercises 7โ€“22, test the given claim. Identify the null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, test statistic, P-value or critical value(s), then state the conclusion about the null hypothesis, as well as the final conclusion that addresses the original claim.

Are Seat Belts Effective? A simple random sample of front-seat occupants involved in car crashes is obtained. Among 2823 occupants not wearing seat belts, 31 were killed. Among 7765 occupants wearing seat belts, 16 were killed (based on data from โ€œWho Wants Airbags?โ€ by Meyer and Finney, Chance, Vol. 18, No. 2). We want to use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that seat belts are effective in reducing fatalities.

a. Test the claim using a hypothesis test.

b. Test the claim by constructing an appropriate confidence interval.

c. What does the result suggest about the effectiveness of seat belts?

Testing Claims About Proportions. In Exercises 7โ€“22, test the given claim. Identify the null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, test statistic, P-value or critical value(s), then state the conclusion about the null hypothesis, as well as the final conclusion that addresses the original claim.

Accuracy of Fast Food Drive-Through Orders In a study of Burger King drive-through orders, it was found that 264 orders were accurate and 54 were not accurate. For McDonaldโ€™s, 329 orders were found to be accurate while 33 orders were not accurate (based on data from QSR magazine). Use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that Burger King and McDonaldโ€™s have the same accuracy rates.

a. Test the claim using a hypothesis test.

b. Test the claim by constructing an appropriate confidence interval.

c. Relative to accuracy of orders, does either restaurant chain appear to be better?

Eyewitness Accuracy of Police Does stress affect the recall ability of police eyewitnesses? This issue was studied in an experiment that tested eyewitness memory a week after a nonstressful interrogation of a cooperative suspect and a stressful interrogation of an uncooperative and belligerent suspect. The numbers of details recalled a week after the incident were recorded, and the summary statistics are given below (based on data from โ€œEyewitness Memory of Police Trainees for Realistic Role Plays,โ€ by Yuille et al., Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, No. 6). Use a 0.01 significance level to test the claim in the article that โ€œstress decreases the amount recalled.โ€

Nonstress: n = 40,\(\bar x\)= 53.3, s = 11.6

Stress: n = 40,\(\bar x\)= 45.3, s = 13.2

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free