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

The power of a test is influenced by the sample size and the choice of significance level. a. Explain how increasing the sample size affects the power (when significance level is held fixed). b. Explain how increasing the significance level affects the power (when sample size is held fixed).

Short Answer

Expert verified
Increasing the sample size increases the power of a test because a larger sample size provides a wider base to detect a false null hypothesis. Increasing the significance level likewise increases the power of a test since it lowers the threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis. However, a larger significance level also increases the risk of making a Type I error.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding Power in Hypothesis Testing

The power of a statistical test is the probability that the test will reject the null hypothesis when the alternative hypothesis is true. It's a way of avoiding Type II error (the failure to reject a false null hypothesis). Power is important in hypothesis testing and has a direct relation with sample size and significance level.
02

Effect of Increasing Sample Size

Part a is about discussing the effect of increasing sample size on the power of the test, while holding the significance level constant. Increasing the sample size, while holding the significance level constant, increases the power of the test. This is because a larger sample size allows for a better realm for the detection of a false null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is false, an increased sample size improves the chances of picking sample values that are farther from the hypothesized value, making the difference more obvious and therefore leading to rejection of the null hypothesis.
03

Effect of Increasing Significance Level

Part b is about the effect of increasing the significance level on the power of the test, while keeping the sample size constant. A larger significance level means that we are more willing to accept the risk of a Type I error (rejecting a true null hypothesis). This makes it easier to reject the null hypothesis and thus increases the power of the test. However, increasing the significance level also increases the probability of a Type I error, which illustrates that we always have to balance power and reliability when deciding on the significance level.

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

The article referenced in Exercise \(10.34\) also reported that 470 of 1000 randomly selected adult Americans thought that the quality of movies being produced was getting worse. a. Is there convincing evidence that fewer than half of adult Americans believe that movie quality is getting worse? Use a significance level of \(.05\). b. Suppose that the sample size had been 100 instead of 1000 , and that 47 thought that the movie quality was getting worse (so that the sample proportion is still . 47 ). Based on this sample of 100 , is there convincing evidence that fewer than half of adult Americans believe that movie quality is getting worse? Use a significance level of \(.05\). c. Write a few sentences explaining why different conclusions were reached in the hypothesis tests of Parts (a) and (b).

According to the article "Workaholism in Organizations: Gender Differences" (Sex Roles [1999]: \(333-346\) ), the following data were reported on 1996 income for random samples of male and female MBA graduates from a certain Canadian business school: \begin{tabular}{lccc} & \(\boldsymbol{N}\) & \(\overline{\boldsymbol{x}}\) & \(\boldsymbol{s}\) \\ \hline Males & 258 & \(\$ 133,442\) & \(\$ 131,090\) \\ Females & 233 & \(\$ 105,156\) & \(\$ 98,525\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: These salary figures are in Canadian dollars. a. Test the hypothesis that the mean salary of male MBA graduates from this school was in excess of \(\$ 100,000\) in \(1996 .\) b. Is there convincing evidence that the mean salary for all female MBA graduates is above \(\$ 100,000 ?\) Test using \(\alpha=.10\) c. If a significance level of \(.05\) or \(.01\) were used instead of \(.10\) in the test of Part (b), would you still reach the same conclusion? Explain.

According to a survey of 1000 adult Americans conducted by Opinion Research Corporation, 210 of those surveyed said playing the lottery would be the most practical way for them to accumulate \(\$ 200,000\) in net wealth in their lifetime ("One in Five Believe Path to Riches Is the Lottery," San Luis Obispo Tribune, January 11,2006 ). Although the article does not describe how the sample was selected, for purposes of this exercise, assume that the sample can be regarded as a random sample of adult Americans. Is there convincing evidence that more than \(20 \%\) of adult Americans believe that playing the lottery is the best strategy for accumulating \(\$ 200,000\) in net wealth?

Duck hunting in populated areas faces opposition on the basis of safety and environmental issues. The San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune (June 18,1991 ) reported the results of a survey to assess public opinion regarding duck hunting on Morro Bay (located along the central coast of California). A random sample of 750 local residents included 560 who strongly opposed hunting on the bay. Does this sample provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the majority of local residents oppose hunting on Morro Bay? Test the relevant hypotheses using \(\alpha=.01\).

Seat belts help prevent injuries in automobile accidents, but they certainly don't offer complete protection in extreme situations. A random sample of 319 front-seat occupants involved in head-on collisions in a certain region resulted in 95 people who sustained no injuries ("Influencing Factors on the Injury Severity of Restrained Front Seat Occupants in Car-to-Car Head-on Collisions," Accident Analysis and Prevention \([1995]: 143-150\) ). Does this suggest that the true (population) proportion of uninjured occupants exceeds .25? State and test the relevant hypotheses using a significance level of \(.05\).

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