Talk:Statistical hypothesis test

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Statistical hypothesis test article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 90 days

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Critical value#Statistics|Critical value]] The anchor (#Statistics) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Common test statistics

I corrected the erroneous last test, ("regression t-test") to a correct F-test. Harald Lang, 2015-11-29.

Discuss changing the lede here

@134.69.232.191: Discuss the lede changes here. You may well have a point, but you removed a reference when you trimmed it to one sentence. Maybe others can weigh in to a discussion and reach a consensus. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why the lede should be shortened: (1) The function of a lede is to be a short summary, not to be a sample platter of verbose details on a topic. (2) There's no fundamental reason to be attached to the aforementioned reference. But even if an editor insists on including that reference, that can be done without re-adding a huge amount of text along with it. To say we should include a bunch of text just because we want to include the reference is backwards and nonsensical. We should include a reference when it's necessary to support the text—not include text just to have something to go with a reference! (3) The long lede is full of poor wording with unclear meaning that likely was made up by an editor and not directly derived from the cited reference anyway. For example, consider this phrase: "to determine a possible conclusion from two different, and likely conflicting, hypotheses." Why "likely?" The alternative is—by definition—nonoverlapping with the null (that's why it's "alternative"). And how does one determine a conclusion "from" hypotheses? Did the editor mean "regarding" the hypotheses? There are several other examples of peculiar, confusing wording (e.g., "difference between the sample and the null hypothesis"). Indeed, it seems highly unlikely that anyone looking to understand what statistical hypothesis testing is would read the lede as-is and come away feeling that they gained the understanding they were hoping for. (4) The long lede contains objectively incorrect information. For example, consider this phrase: "Type I error and Type II error which are controlled by the pre-specified significance level." Although the significance level affects the Type II error rate, it does not "control" Type II error. Unlike the Type I error rate, the Type II error rate is controlled by power (which depends on sample size), not by alpha alone. Or consider this statement: "every hypothesis test based on significance can be obtained via a confidence interval, and every confidence interval can be obtained via a hypothesis test based on significance." That is blatantly false; there are many significance test procedures (e.g., permutation-based methods and Simes-based multiple-testing procedures) that have no associated confidence interval procedure, and in any case one cannot infer a confidence interval from a p-value alone. Yet that blatantly false statement is the one that cites the reference that one editor is inexplicably attached to.

In short, an editor implied that we should keep an overly long lede, which is bloated, confusing, poorly written, and in some cases objectively wrong, simply because the last sentence—which happens to be incorrect—cites a reference. I think it's obvious that is not a good reason. 23.242.195.76 (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ISHIKAWAYI (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ISHIKAWAYI (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly organized

I suggest defining the null hypothesis before citing its historical importance.159.83.248.41 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]