how to prove hypothesis

Reset password New user? Sign up

Existing user? Log in

Hypothesis Testing

Already have an account? Log in here.

A hypothesis test is a statistical inference method used to test the significance of a proposed (hypothesized) relation between population statistics (parameters) and their corresponding sample estimators . In other words, hypothesis tests are used to determine if there is enough evidence in a sample to prove a hypothesis true for the entire population.

The test considers two hypotheses: the null hypothesis , which is a statement meant to be tested, usually something like "there is no effect" with the intention of proving this false, and the alternate hypothesis , which is the statement meant to stand after the test is performed. The two hypotheses must be mutually exclusive ; moreover, in most applications, the two are complementary (one being the negation of the other). The test works by comparing the $p$-value to the level of significance (a chosen target). If the $p$-value is less than or equal to the level of significance, then the null hypothesis is rejected.

When analyzing data, only samples of a certain size might be manageable as efficient computations. In some situations the error terms follow a continuous or infinite distribution, hence the use of samples to suggest accuracy of the chosen test statistics. The method of hypothesis testing gives an advantage over guessing what distribution or which parameters the data follows.

Definitions and Methodology

Hypothesis test and confidence intervals.

In statistical inference, properties (parameters) of a population are analyzed by sampling data sets. Given assumptions on the distribution, i.e. a statistical model of the data, certain hypotheses can be deduced from the known behavior of the model. These hypotheses must be tested against sampled data from the population.

The null hypothesis $($denoted $H_0)$ is a statement that is assumed to be true. If the null hypothesis is rejected, then there is enough evidence (statistical significance) to accept the alternate hypothesis $($denoted $H_1).$ Before doing any test for significance, both hypotheses must be clearly stated and non-conflictive, i.e. mutually exclusive, statements. Rejecting the null hypothesis, given that it is true, is called a type I error and it is denoted $\alpha$, which is also its probability of occurrence. Failing to reject the null hypothesis, given that it is false, is called a type II error and it is denoted $\beta$, which is also its probability of occurrence. Also, $\alpha$ is known as the significance level , and $1-\beta$ is known as the power of the test. $H_0$ $\textbf{is true}$$\hspace{15mm}$ $H_0$ $\textbf{is false}$ $\textbf{Reject}$ $H_0$$\hspace{10mm}$ Type I error Correct Decision $\textbf{Reject}$ $H_1$ Correct Decision Type II error The test statistic is the standardized value following the sampled data under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true, and a chosen particular test. These tests depend on the statistic to be studied and the assumed distribution it follows, e.g. the population mean following a normal distribution. The $p$-value is the probability of observing an extreme test statistic in the direction of the alternate hypothesis, given that the null hypothesis is true. The critical value is the value of the assumed distribution of the test statistic such that the probability of making a type I error is small.

Methodologies: Given an estimator $\hat \theta$ of a population statistic $\theta$, following a probability distribution $P(T)$, computed from a sample $\mathcal{S},$ and given a significance level $\alpha$ and test statistic $t^*,$ define $H_0$ and $H_1;$ compute the test statistic $t^*.$ $p$-value Approach (most prevalent): Find the $p$-value using $t^*$ (right-tailed). If the $p$-value is at most $\alpha,$ reject $H_0$. Otherwise, reject $H_1$. Critical Value Approach: Find the critical value solving the equation $P(T\geq t_\alpha)=\alpha$ (right-tailed). If $t^*>t_\alpha$, reject $H_0$. Otherwise, reject $H_1$. Note: Failing to reject $H_0$ only means inability to accept $H_1$, and it does not mean to accept $H_0$.

Assume a normally distributed population has recorded cholesterol levels with various statistics computed. From a sample of 100 subjects in the population, the sample mean was 214.12 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter), with a sample standard deviation of 45.71 mg/dL. Perform a hypothesis test, with significance level 0.05, to test if there is enough evidence to conclude that the population mean is larger than 200 mg/dL. Hypothesis Test We will perform a hypothesis test using the $p$-value approach with significance level $\alpha=0.05:$ Define $H_0$: $\mu=200$. Define $H_1$: $\mu>200$. Since our values are normally distributed, the test statistic is $z^*=\frac{\bar X - \mu_0}{\frac{s}{\sqrt{n}}}=\frac{214.12 - 200}{\frac{45.71}{\sqrt{100}}}\approx 3.09$. Using a standard normal distribution, we find that our $p$-value is approximately $0.001$. Since the $p$-value is at most $\alpha=0.05,$ we reject $H_0$. Therefore, we can conclude that the test shows sufficient evidence to support the claim that $\mu$ is larger than $200$ mg/dL.

If the sample size was smaller, the normal and $t$-distributions behave differently. Also, the question itself must be managed by a double-tail test instead.

Assume a population's cholesterol levels are recorded and various statistics are computed. From a sample of 25 subjects, the sample mean was 214.12 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter), with a sample standard deviation of 45.71 mg/dL. Perform a hypothesis test, with significance level 0.05, to test if there is enough evidence to conclude that the population mean is not equal to 200 mg/dL. Hypothesis Test We will perform a hypothesis test using the $p$-value approach with significance level $\alpha=0.05$ and the $t$-distribution with 24 degrees of freedom: Define $H_0$: $\mu=200$. Define $H_1$: $\mu\neq 200$. Using the $t$-distribution, the test statistic is $t^*=\frac{\bar X - \mu_0}{\frac{s}{\sqrt{n}}}=\frac{214.12 - 200}{\frac{45.71}{\sqrt{25}}}\approx 1.54$. Using a $t$-distribution with 24 degrees of freedom, we find that our $p$-value is approximately $2(0.068)=0.136$. We have multiplied by two since this is a two-tailed argument, i.e. the mean can be smaller than or larger than. Since the $p$-value is larger than $\alpha=0.05,$ we fail to reject $H_0$. Therefore, the test does not show sufficient evidence to support the claim that $\mu$ is not equal to $200$ mg/dL.

The complement of the rejection on a two-tailed hypothesis test (with significance level $\alpha$) for a population parameter $\theta$ is equivalent to finding a confidence interval $($with confidence level $1-\alpha)$ for the population parameter $\theta$. If the assumption on the parameter $\theta$ falls inside the confidence interval, then the test has failed to reject the null hypothesis $($with $p$-value greater than $\alpha).$ Otherwise, if $\theta$ does not fall in the confidence interval, then the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternate $($with $p$-value at most $\alpha).$

Statistics (Estimation)
Normal Distribution
Correlation
Confidence Intervals

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

User Preferences

Content preview.

Arcu felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis:

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident

Keyboard Shortcuts

S.3 hypothesis testing.

In reviewing hypothesis tests, we start first with the general idea. Then, we keep returning to the basic procedures of hypothesis testing, each time adding a little more detail.

The general idea of hypothesis testing involves:

Making an initial assumption.
Collecting evidence (data).
Based on the available evidence (data), deciding whether to reject or not reject the initial assumption.

Every hypothesis test — regardless of the population parameter involved — requires the above three steps.

Example S.3.1

Is normal body temperature really 98.6 degrees f section .

Consider the population of many, many adults. A researcher hypothesized that the average adult body temperature is lower than the often-advertised 98.6 degrees F. That is, the researcher wants an answer to the question: "Is the average adult body temperature 98.6 degrees? Or is it lower?" To answer his research question, the researcher starts by assuming that the average adult body temperature was 98.6 degrees F.

Then, the researcher went out and tried to find evidence that refutes his initial assumption. In doing so, he selects a random sample of 130 adults. The average body temperature of the 130 sampled adults is 98.25 degrees.

Then, the researcher uses the data he collected to make a decision about his initial assumption. It is either likely or unlikely that the researcher would collect the evidence he did given his initial assumption that the average adult body temperature is 98.6 degrees:

If it is likely , then the researcher does not reject his initial assumption that the average adult body temperature is 98.6 degrees. There is not enough evidence to do otherwise.
either the researcher's initial assumption is correct and he experienced a very unusual event;
or the researcher's initial assumption is incorrect.

In statistics, we generally don't make claims that require us to believe that a very unusual event happened. That is, in the practice of statistics, if the evidence (data) we collected is unlikely in light of the initial assumption, then we reject our initial assumption.

Example S.3.2

Criminal trial analogy section .

One place where you can consistently see the general idea of hypothesis testing in action is in criminal trials held in the United States. Our criminal justice system assumes "the defendant is innocent until proven guilty." That is, our initial assumption is that the defendant is innocent.

In the practice of statistics, we make our initial assumption when we state our two competing hypotheses -- the null hypothesis ( H 0 ) and the alternative hypothesis ( H A ). Here, our hypotheses are:

H 0 : Defendant is not guilty (innocent)
H A : Defendant is guilty

In statistics, we always assume the null hypothesis is true . That is, the null hypothesis is always our initial assumption.

The prosecution team then collects evidence — such as finger prints, blood spots, hair samples, carpet fibers, shoe prints, ransom notes, and handwriting samples — with the hopes of finding "sufficient evidence" to make the assumption of innocence refutable.

In statistics, the data are the evidence.

The jury then makes a decision based on the available evidence:

If the jury finds sufficient evidence — beyond a reasonable doubt — to make the assumption of innocence refutable, the jury rejects the null hypothesis and deems the defendant guilty. We behave as if the defendant is guilty.
If there is insufficient evidence, then the jury does not reject the null hypothesis . We behave as if the defendant is innocent.

In statistics, we always make one of two decisions. We either "reject the null hypothesis" or we "fail to reject the null hypothesis."

Errors in Hypothesis Testing Section

Did you notice the use of the phrase "behave as if" in the previous discussion? We "behave as if" the defendant is guilty; we do not "prove" that the defendant is guilty. And, we "behave as if" the defendant is innocent; we do not "prove" that the defendant is innocent.

This is a very important distinction! We make our decision based on evidence not on 100% guaranteed proof. Again:

If we reject the null hypothesis, we do not prove that the alternative hypothesis is true.
If we do not reject the null hypothesis, we do not prove that the null hypothesis is true.

We merely state that there is enough evidence to behave one way or the other. This is always true in statistics! Because of this, whatever the decision, there is always a chance that we made an error .

Let's review the two types of errors that can be made in criminal trials:

Table S.3.2 shows how this corresponds to the two types of errors in hypothesis testing.

Note that, in statistics, we call the two types of errors by two different names -- one is called a "Type I error," and the other is called a "Type II error." Here are the formal definitions of the two types of errors:

There is always a chance of making one of these errors. But, a good scientific study will minimize the chance of doing so!

Making the Decision Section

Recall that it is either likely or unlikely that we would observe the evidence we did given our initial assumption. If it is likely , we do not reject the null hypothesis. If it is unlikely , then we reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Effectively, then, making the decision reduces to determining "likely" or "unlikely."

In statistics, there are two ways to determine whether the evidence is likely or unlikely given the initial assumption:

We could take the " critical value approach " (favored in many of the older textbooks).
Or, we could take the " P -value approach " (what is used most often in research, journal articles, and statistical software).

In the next two sections, we review the procedures behind each of these two approaches. To make our review concrete, let's imagine that μ is the average grade point average of all American students who major in mathematics. We first review the critical value approach for conducting each of the following three hypothesis tests about the population mean $\mu$:

In Practice

We would want to conduct the first hypothesis test if we were interested in concluding that the average grade point average of the group is more than 3.
We would want to conduct the second hypothesis test if we were interested in concluding that the average grade point average of the group is less than 3.
And, we would want to conduct the third hypothesis test if we were only interested in concluding that the average grade point average of the group differs from 3 (without caring whether it is more or less than 3).

Upon completing the review of the critical value approach, we review the P -value approach for conducting each of the above three hypothesis tests about the population mean $\mu$. The procedures that we review here for both approaches easily extend to hypothesis tests about any other population parameter.

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.1: Introduction to Hypothesis Testing

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 10211

Kyle Siegrist
University of Alabama in Huntsville via Random Services

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$

$ \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$

$ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$

$ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$

$ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$

$ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$

$ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$

$ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

$ \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow$

$ \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $

$ \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} $

$ \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} $

Basic Theory

Preliminaries.

As usual, our starting point is a random experiment with an underlying sample space and a probability measure $\P$. In the basic statistical model, we have an observable random variable $\bs{X}$ taking values in a set $S$. In general, $\bs{X}$ can have quite a complicated structure. For example, if the experiment is to sample $n$ objects from a population and record various measurements of interest, then \[ \bs{X} = (X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n) \] where $X_i$ is the vector of measurements for the $i$th object. The most important special case occurs when $(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n)$ are independent and identically distributed. In this case, we have a random sample of size $n$ from the common distribution.

The purpose of this section is to define and discuss the basic concepts of statistical hypothesis testing . Collectively, these concepts are sometimes referred to as the Neyman-Pearson framework, in honor of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, who first formalized them.

A statistical hypothesis is a statement about the distribution of $\bs{X}$. Equivalently, a statistical hypothesis specifies a set of possible distributions of $\bs{X}$: the set of distributions for which the statement is true. A hypothesis that specifies a single distribution for $\bs{X}$ is called simple ; a hypothesis that specifies more than one distribution for $\bs{X}$ is called composite .

In hypothesis testing , the goal is to see if there is sufficient statistical evidence to reject a presumed null hypothesis in favor of a conjectured alternative hypothesis . The null hypothesis is usually denoted $H_0$ while the alternative hypothesis is usually denoted $H_1$.

An hypothesis test is a statistical decision ; the conclusion will either be to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative, or to fail to reject the null hypothesis. The decision that we make must, of course, be based on the observed value $\bs{x}$ of the data vector $\bs{X}$. Thus, we will find an appropriate subset $R$ of the sample space $S$ and reject $H_0$ if and only if $\bs{x} \in R$. The set $R$ is known as the rejection region or the critical region . Note the asymmetry between the null and alternative hypotheses. This asymmetry is due to the fact that we assume the null hypothesis, in a sense, and then see if there is sufficient evidence in $\bs{x}$ to overturn this assumption in favor of the alternative.

An hypothesis test is a statistical analogy to proof by contradiction, in a sense. Suppose for a moment that $H_1$ is a statement in a mathematical theory and that $H_0$ is its negation. One way that we can prove $H_1$ is to assume $H_0$ and work our way logically to a contradiction. In an hypothesis test, we don't prove anything of course, but there are similarities. We assume $H_0$ and then see if the data $\bs{x}$ are sufficiently at odds with that assumption that we feel justified in rejecting $H_0$ in favor of $H_1$.

Often, the critical region is defined in terms of a statistic $w(\bs{X})$, known as a test statistic , where $w$ is a function from $S$ into another set $T$. We find an appropriate rejection region $R_T \subseteq T$ and reject $H_0$ when the observed value $w(\bs{x}) \in R_T$. Thus, the rejection region in $S$ is then $R = w^{-1}(R_T) = \left\{\bs{x} \in S: w(\bs{x}) \in R_T\right\}$. As usual, the use of a statistic often allows significant data reduction when the dimension of the test statistic is much smaller than the dimension of the data vector.

The ultimate decision may be correct or may be in error. There are two types of errors, depending on which of the hypotheses is actually true.

Types of errors:

A type 1 error is rejecting the null hypothesis $H_0$ when $H_0$ is true.
A type 2 error is failing to reject the null hypothesis $H_0$ when the alternative hypothesis $H_1$ is true.

Similarly, there are two ways to make a correct decision: we could reject $H_0$ when $H_1$ is true or we could fail to reject $H_0$ when $H_0$ is true. The possibilities are summarized in the following table:

Of course, when we observe $\bs{X} = \bs{x}$ and make our decision, either we will have made the correct decision or we will have committed an error, and usually we will never know which of these events has occurred. Prior to gathering the data, however, we can consider the probabilities of the various errors.

If $H_0$ is true (that is, the distribution of $\bs{X}$ is specified by $H_0$), then $\P(\bs{X} \in R)$ is the probability of a type 1 error for this distribution. If $H_0$ is composite, then $H_0$ specifies a variety of different distributions for $\bs{X}$ and thus there is a set of type 1 error probabilities.

The maximum probability of a type 1 error, over the set of distributions specified by $ H_0 $, is the significance level of the test or the size of the critical region.

The significance level is often denoted by $\alpha$. Usually, the rejection region is constructed so that the significance level is a prescribed, small value (typically 0.1, 0.05, 0.01).

If $H_1$ is true (that is, the distribution of $\bs{X}$ is specified by $H_1$), then $\P(\bs{X} \notin R)$ is the probability of a type 2 error for this distribution. Again, if $H_1$ is composite then $H_1$ specifies a variety of different distributions for $\bs{X}$, and thus there will be a set of type 2 error probabilities. Generally, there is a tradeoff between the type 1 and type 2 error probabilities. If we reduce the probability of a type 1 error, by making the rejection region $R$ smaller, we necessarily increase the probability of a type 2 error because the complementary region $S \setminus R$ is larger.

The extreme cases can give us some insight. First consider the decision rule in which we never reject $H_0$, regardless of the evidence $\bs{x}$. This corresponds to the rejection region $R = \emptyset$. A type 1 error is impossible, so the significance level is 0. On the other hand, the probability of a type 2 error is 1 for any distribution defined by $H_1$. At the other extreme, consider the decision rule in which we always rejects $H_0$ regardless of the evidence $\bs{x}$. This corresponds to the rejection region $R = S$. A type 2 error is impossible, but now the probability of a type 1 error is 1 for any distribution defined by $H_0$. In between these two worthless tests are meaningful tests that take the evidence $\bs{x}$ into account.

If $H_1$ is true, so that the distribution of $\bs{X}$ is specified by $H_1$, then $\P(\bs{X} \in R)$, the probability of rejecting $H_0$ is the power of the test for that distribution.

Thus the power of the test for a distribution specified by $ H_1 $ is the probability of making the correct decision.

Suppose that we have two tests, corresponding to rejection regions $R_1$ and $R_2$, respectively, each having significance level $\alpha$. The test with region $R_1$ is uniformly more powerful than the test with region $R_2$ if \[ \P(\bs{X} \in R_1) \ge \P(\bs{X} \in R_2) \text{ for every distribution of } \bs{X} \text{ specified by } H_1 \]

Naturally, in this case, we would prefer the first test. Often, however, two tests will not be uniformly ordered; one test will be more powerful for some distributions specified by $H_1$ while the other test will be more powerful for other distributions specified by $H_1$.

If a test has significance level $\alpha$ and is uniformly more powerful than any other test with significance level $\alpha$, then the test is said to be a uniformly most powerful test at level $\alpha$.

Clearly a uniformly most powerful test is the best we can do.

$P$-value

In most cases, we have a general procedure that allows us to construct a test (that is, a rejection region $R_\alpha$) for any given significance level $\alpha \in (0, 1)$. Typically, $R_\alpha$ decreases (in the subset sense) as $\alpha$ decreases.

The $P$-value of the observed value $\bs{x}$ of $\bs{X}$, denoted $P(\bs{x})$, is defined to be the smallest $\alpha$ for which $\bs{x} \in R_\alpha$; that is, the smallest significance level for which $H_0$ is rejected, given $\bs{X} = \bs{x}$.

Knowing $P(\bs{x})$ allows us to test $H_0$ at any significance level for the given data $\bs{x}$: If $P(\bs{x}) \le \alpha$ then we would reject $H_0$ at significance level $\alpha$; if $P(\bs{x}) \gt \alpha$ then we fail to reject $H_0$ at significance level $\alpha$. Note that $P(\bs{X})$ is a statistic . Informally, $P(\bs{x})$ can often be thought of as the probability of an outcome as or more extreme than the observed value $\bs{x}$, where extreme is interpreted relative to the null hypothesis $H_0$.

Analogy with Justice Systems

There is a helpful analogy between statistical hypothesis testing and the criminal justice system in the US and various other countries. Consider a person charged with a crime. The presumed null hypothesis is that the person is innocent of the crime; the conjectured alternative hypothesis is that the person is guilty of the crime. The test of the hypotheses is a trial with evidence presented by both sides playing the role of the data. After considering the evidence, the jury delivers the decision as either not guilty or guilty . Note that innocent is not a possible verdict of the jury, because it is not the point of the trial to prove the person innocent. Rather, the point of the trial is to see whether there is sufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis that the person is innocent in favor of the alternative hypothesis of that the person is guilty. A type 1 error is convicting a person who is innocent; a type 2 error is acquitting a person who is guilty. Generally, a type 1 error is considered the more serious of the two possible errors, so in an attempt to hold the chance of a type 1 error to a very low level, the standard for conviction in serious criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt .

Tests of an Unknown Parameter

Hypothesis testing is a very general concept, but an important special class occurs when the distribution of the data variable $\bs{X}$ depends on a parameter $\theta$ taking values in a parameter space $\Theta$. The parameter may be vector-valued, so that $\bs{\theta} = (\theta_1, \theta_2, \ldots, \theta_n)$ and $\Theta \subseteq \R^k$ for some $k \in \N_+$. The hypotheses generally take the form \[ H_0: \theta \in \Theta_0 \text{ versus } H_1: \theta \notin \Theta_0 \] where $\Theta_0$ is a prescribed subset of the parameter space $\Theta$. In this setting, the probabilities of making an error or a correct decision depend on the true value of $\theta$. If $R$ is the rejection region, then the power function $ Q $ is given by \[ Q(\theta) = \P_\theta(\bs{X} \in R), \quad \theta \in \Theta \] The power function gives a lot of information about the test.

The power function satisfies the following properties:

$Q(\theta)$ is the probability of a type 1 error when $\theta \in \Theta_0$.
$\max\left\{Q(\theta): \theta \in \Theta_0\right\}$ is the significance level of the test.
$1 - Q(\theta)$ is the probability of a type 2 error when $\theta \notin \Theta_0$.
$Q(\theta)$ is the power of the test when $\theta \notin \Theta_0$.

If we have two tests, we can compare them by means of their power functions.

Suppose that we have two tests, corresponding to rejection regions $R_1$ and $R_2$, respectively, each having significance level $\alpha$. The test with rejection region $R_1$ is uniformly more powerful than the test with rejection region $R_2$ if $ Q_1(\theta) \ge Q_2(\theta)$ for all $ \theta \notin \Theta_0 $.

Most hypothesis tests of an unknown real parameter $\theta$ fall into three special cases:

Suppose that $ \theta $ is a real parameter and $ \theta_0 \in \Theta $ a specified value. The tests below are respectively the two-sided test , the left-tailed test , and the right-tailed test .

$H_0: \theta = \theta_0$ versus $H_1: \theta \ne \theta_0$
$H_0: \theta \ge \theta_0$ versus $H_1: \theta \lt \theta_0$
$H_0: \theta \le \theta_0$ versus $H_1: \theta \gt \theta_0$

Thus the tests are named after the conjectured alternative. Of course, there may be other unknown parameters besides $\theta$ (known as nuisance parameters ).

Equivalence Between Hypothesis Test and Confidence Sets

There is an equivalence between hypothesis tests and confidence sets for a parameter $\theta$.

Suppose that $C(\bs{x})$ is a $1 - \alpha$ level confidence set for $\theta$. The following test has significance level $\alpha$ for the hypothesis $ H_0: \theta = \theta_0 $ versus $ H_1: \theta \ne \theta_0 $: Reject $H_0$ if and only if $\theta_0 \notin C(\bs{x})$

By definition, $\P[\theta \in C(\bs{X})] = 1 - \alpha$. Hence if $H_0$ is true so that $\theta = \theta_0$, then the probability of a type 1 error is $P[\theta \notin C(\bs{X})] = \alpha$.

Equivalently, we fail to reject $H_0$ at significance level $\alpha$ if and only if $\theta_0$ is in the corresponding $1 - \alpha$ level confidence set. In particular, this equivalence applies to interval estimates of a real parameter $\theta$ and the common tests for $\theta$ given above .

In each case below, the confidence interval has confidence level $1 - \alpha$ and the test has significance level $\alpha$.

Suppose that $\left[L(\bs{X}, U(\bs{X})\right]$ is a two-sided confidence interval for $\theta$. Reject $H_0: \theta = \theta_0$ versus $H_1: \theta \ne \theta_0$ if and only if $\theta_0 \lt L(\bs{X})$ or $\theta_0 \gt U(\bs{X})$.
Suppose that $L(\bs{X})$ is a confidence lower bound for $\theta$. Reject $H_0: \theta \le \theta_0$ versus $H_1: \theta \gt \theta_0$ if and only if $\theta_0 \lt L(\bs{X})$.
Suppose that $U(\bs{X})$ is a confidence upper bound for $\theta$. Reject $H_0: \theta \ge \theta_0$ versus $H_1: \theta \lt \theta_0$ if and only if $\theta_0 \gt U(\bs{X})$.

Pivot Variables and Test Statistics

Recall that confidence sets of an unknown parameter $\theta$ are often constructed through a pivot variable , that is, a random variable $W(\bs{X}, \theta)$ that depends on the data vector $\bs{X}$ and the parameter $\theta$, but whose distribution does not depend on $\theta$ and is known. In this case, a natural test statistic for the basic tests given above is $W(\bs{X}, \theta_0)$.

How it works

Hypothesis Testing – A Complete Guide with Examples

Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 14th, 2021 , Revised On October 26, 2023

In statistics, hypothesis testing is a critical tool. It allows us to make informed decisions about populations based on sample data. Whether you are a researcher trying to prove a scientific point, a marketer analysing A/B test results, or a manufacturer ensuring quality control, hypothesis testing plays a pivotal role. This guide aims to introduce you to the concept and walk you through real-world examples.

What is a Hypothesis and a Hypothesis Testing?

A hypothesis is considered a belief or assumption that has to be accepted, rejected, proved or disproved. In contrast, a research hypothesis is a research question for a researcher that has to be proven correct or incorrect through investigation.

What is Hypothesis Testing?

Hypothesis testing is a scientific method used for making a decision and drawing conclusions by using a statistical approach. It is used to suggest new ideas by testing theories to know whether or not the sample data supports research. A research hypothesis is a predictive statement that has to be tested using scientific methods that join an independent variable to a dependent variable.

Example: The academic performance of student A is better than student B

Characteristics of the Hypothesis to be Tested

A hypothesis should be:

Clear and precise
Capable of being tested
Able to relate to a variable
Stated in simple terms
Consistent with known facts
Limited in scope and specific
Tested in a limited timeframe
Explain the facts in detail

What is a Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis?

A null hypothesis is a hypothesis when there is no significant relationship between the dependent and the participants’ independent variables .

In simple words, it’s a hypothesis that has been put forth but hasn’t been proved as yet. A researcher aims to disprove the theory. The abbreviation “Ho” is used to denote a null hypothesis.

If you want to compare two methods and assume that both methods are equally good, this assumption is considered the null hypothesis.

Example: In an automobile trial, you feel that the new vehicle’s mileage is similar to the previous model of the car, on average. You can write it as: Ho: there is no difference between the mileage of both vehicles. If your findings don’t support your hypothesis and you get opposite results, this outcome will be considered an alternative hypothesis.

If you assume that one method is better than another method, then it’s considered an alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is the theory that a researcher seeks to prove and is typically denoted by H1 or HA.

If you support a null hypothesis, it means you’re not supporting the alternative hypothesis. Similarly, if you reject a null hypothesis, it means you are recommending the alternative hypothesis.

Example: In an automobile trial, you feel that the new vehicle’s mileage is better than the previous model of the vehicle. You can write it as; Ha: the two vehicles have different mileage. On average/ the fuel consumption of the new vehicle model is better than the previous model.

If a null hypothesis is rejected during the hypothesis test, even if it’s true, then it is considered as a type-I error. On the other hand, if you don’t dismiss a hypothesis, even if it’s false because you could not identify its falseness, it’s considered a type-II error.

Hire an Expert Researcher

Orders completed by our expert writers are

Formally drafted in academic style
100% Plagiarism free & 100% Confidential
Never resold
Include unlimited free revisions
Completed to match exact client requirements

How to Conduct Hypothesis Testing?

Here is a step-by-step guide on how to conduct hypothesis testing.

Step 1: State the Null and Alternative Hypothesis

Once you develop a research hypothesis, it’s important to state it is as a Null hypothesis (Ho) and an Alternative hypothesis (Ha) to test it statistically.

A null hypothesis is a preferred choice as it provides the opportunity to test the theory. In contrast, you can accept the alternative hypothesis when the null hypothesis has been rejected.

Example: You want to identify a relationship between obesity of men and women and the modern living style. You develop a hypothesis that women, on average, gain weight quickly compared to men. Then you write it as: Ho: Women, on average, don’t gain weight quickly compared to men. Ha: Women, on average, gain weight quickly compared to men.

Step 2: Data Collection

Hypothesis testing follows the statistical method, and statistics are all about data. It’s challenging to gather complete information about a specific population you want to study. You need to gather the data obtained through a large number of samples from a specific population.

Example: Suppose you want to test the difference in the rate of obesity between men and women. You should include an equal number of men and women in your sample. Then investigate various aspects such as their lifestyle, eating patterns and profession, and any other variables that may influence average weight. You should also determine your study’s scope, whether it applies to a specific group of population or worldwide population. You can use available information from various places, countries, and regions.

Step 3: Select Appropriate Statistical Test

There are many types of statistical tests , but we discuss the most two common types below, such as One-sided and two-sided tests.

Note: Your choice of the type of test depends on the purpose of your study

One-sided Test

In the one-sided test, the values of rejecting a null hypothesis are located in one tail of the probability distribution. The set of values is less or higher than the critical value of the test. It is also called a one-tailed test of significance.

Example: If you want to test that all mangoes in a basket are ripe. You can write it as: Ho: All mangoes in the basket, on average, are ripe. If you find all ripe mangoes in the basket, the null hypothesis you developed will be true.

Two-sided Test

In the two-sided test, the values of rejecting a null hypothesis are located on both tails of the probability distribution. The set of values is less or higher than the first critical value of the test and higher than the second critical value test. It is also called a two-tailed test of significance.

Example: Nothing can be explicitly said whether all mangoes are ripe in the basket. If you reject the null hypothesis (Ho: All mangoes in the basket, on average, are ripe), then it means all mangoes in the basket are not likely to be ripe. A few mangoes could be raw as well.

Get statistical analysis help at an affordable price

An expert statistician will complete your work
Rigorous quality checks
Confidentiality and reliability
Any statistical software of your choice
Free Plagiarism Report

Step 4: Select the Level of Significance

When you reject a null hypothesis, even if it’s true during a statistical hypothesis, it is considered the significance level . It is the probability of a type one error. The significance should be as minimum as possible to avoid the type-I error, which is considered severe and should be avoided.

If the significance level is minimum, then it prevents the researchers from false claims.

The significance level is denoted by P, and it has given the value of 0.05 (P=0.05)

If the P-Value is less than 0.05, then the difference will be significant. If the P-value is higher than 0.05, then the difference is non-significant.

Example: Suppose you apply a one-sided test to test whether women gain weight quickly compared to men. You get to know about the average weight between men and women and the factors promoting weight gain.

Step 5: Find out Whether the Null Hypothesis is Rejected or Supported

After conducting a statistical test, you should identify whether your null hypothesis is rejected or accepted based on the test results. It would help if you observed the P-value for this.

Example: If you find the P-value of your test is less than 0.5/5%, then you need to reject your null hypothesis (Ho: Women, on average, don’t gain weight quickly compared to men). On the other hand, if a null hypothesis is rejected, then it means the alternative hypothesis might be true (Ha: Women, on average, gain weight quickly compared to men. If you find your test’s P-value is above 0.5/5%, then it means your null hypothesis is true.

Step 6: Present the Outcomes of your Study

The final step is to present the outcomes of your study . You need to ensure whether you have met the objectives of your research or not.

In the discussion section and conclusion , you can present your findings by using supporting evidence and conclude whether your null hypothesis was rejected or supported.

In the result section, you can summarise your study’s outcomes, including the average difference and P-value of the two groups.

If we talk about the findings, our study your results will be as follows:

Example: In the study of identifying whether women gain weight quickly compared to men, we found the P-value is less than 0.5. Hence, we can reject the null hypothesis (Ho: Women, on average, don’t gain weight quickly than men) and conclude that women may likely gain weight quickly than men.

Did you know in your academic paper you should not mention whether you have accepted or rejected the null hypothesis?

Always remember that you either conclude to reject Ho in favor of Haor do not reject Ho . It would help if you never rejected Ha or even accept Ha .

Suppose your null hypothesis is rejected in the hypothesis testing. If you conclude reject Ho in favor of Haor do not reject Ho, then it doesn’t mean that the null hypothesis is true. It only means that there is a lack of evidence against Ho in favour of Ha. If your null hypothesis is not true, then the alternative hypothesis is likely to be true.

Example: We found that the P-value is less than 0.5. Hence, we can conclude reject Ho in favour of Ha (Ho: Women, on average, don’t gain weight quickly than men) reject Ho in favour of Ha. However, rejected in favour of Ha means (Ha: women may likely to gain weight quickly than men)

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the 3 types of hypothesis test.

The 3 types of hypothesis tests are:

One-Sample Test : Compare sample data to a known population value.
Two-Sample Test : Compare means between two sample groups.
ANOVA : Analyze variance among multiple groups to determine significant differences.

What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation or prediction about a phenomenon, often based on observations. It serves as a starting point for research or experimentation, providing a testable statement that can either be supported or refuted through data and analysis. In essence, it’s an educated guess that drives scientific inquiry.

What are null hypothesis?

A null hypothesis (often denoted as H0) suggests that there is no effect or difference in a study or experiment. It represents a default position or status quo. Statistical tests evaluate data to determine if there’s enough evidence to reject this null hypothesis.

What is the probability value?

The probability value, or p-value, is a measure used in statistics to determine the significance of an observed effect. It indicates the probability of obtaining the observed results, or more extreme, if the null hypothesis were true. A small p-value (typically <0.05) suggests evidence against the null hypothesis, warranting its rejection.

What is p value?

The p-value is a fundamental concept in statistical hypothesis testing. It represents the probability of observing a test statistic as extreme, or more so, than the one calculated from sample data, assuming the null hypothesis is true. A low p-value suggests evidence against the null, possibly justifying its rejection.

What is a t test?

A t-test is a statistical test used to compare the means of two groups. It determines if observed differences between the groups are statistically significant or if they likely occurred by chance. Commonly applied in research, there are different t-tests, including independent, paired, and one-sample, tailored to various data scenarios.

When to reject null hypothesis?

Reject the null hypothesis when the test statistic falls into a predefined rejection region or when the p-value is less than the chosen significance level (commonly 0.05). This suggests that the observed data is unlikely under the null hypothesis, indicating evidence for the alternative hypothesis. Always consider the study’s context.

Hypothesis Testing (cont...)

Hypothesis testing, the null and alternative hypothesis.

In order to undertake hypothesis testing you need to express your research hypothesis as a null and alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are statements regarding the differences or effects that occur in the population. You will use your sample to test which statement (i.e., the null hypothesis or alternative hypothesis) is most likely (although technically, you test the evidence against the null hypothesis). So, with respect to our teaching example, the null and alternative hypothesis will reflect statements about all statistics students on graduate management courses.

The null hypothesis is essentially the "devil's advocate" position. That is, it assumes that whatever you are trying to prove did not happen ( hint: it usually states that something equals zero). For example, the two different teaching methods did not result in different exam performances (i.e., zero difference). Another example might be that there is no relationship between anxiety and athletic performance (i.e., the slope is zero). The alternative hypothesis states the opposite and is usually the hypothesis you are trying to prove (e.g., the two different teaching methods did result in different exam performances). Initially, you can state these hypotheses in more general terms (e.g., using terms like "effect", "relationship", etc.), as shown below for the teaching methods example:

Depending on how you want to "summarize" the exam performances will determine how you might want to write a more specific null and alternative hypothesis. For example, you could compare the mean exam performance of each group (i.e., the "seminar" group and the "lectures-only" group). This is what we will demonstrate here, but other options include comparing the distributions , medians , amongst other things. As such, we can state:

Now that you have identified the null and alternative hypotheses, you need to find evidence and develop a strategy for declaring your "support" for either the null or alternative hypothesis. We can do this using some statistical theory and some arbitrary cut-off points. Both these issues are dealt with next.

Significance levels

The level of statistical significance is often expressed as the so-called p -value . Depending on the statistical test you have chosen, you will calculate a probability (i.e., the p -value) of observing your sample results (or more extreme) given that the null hypothesis is true . Another way of phrasing this is to consider the probability that a difference in a mean score (or other statistic) could have arisen based on the assumption that there really is no difference. Let us consider this statement with respect to our example where we are interested in the difference in mean exam performance between two different teaching methods. If there really is no difference between the two teaching methods in the population (i.e., given that the null hypothesis is true), how likely would it be to see a difference in the mean exam performance between the two teaching methods as large as (or larger than) that which has been observed in your sample?

So, you might get a p -value such as 0.03 (i.e., p = .03). This means that there is a 3% chance of finding a difference as large as (or larger than) the one in your study given that the null hypothesis is true. However, you want to know whether this is "statistically significant". Typically, if there was a 5% or less chance (5 times in 100 or less) that the difference in the mean exam performance between the two teaching methods (or whatever statistic you are using) is as different as observed given the null hypothesis is true, you would reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Alternately, if the chance was greater than 5% (5 times in 100 or more), you would fail to reject the null hypothesis and would not accept the alternative hypothesis. As such, in this example where p = .03, we would reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. We reject it because at a significance level of 0.03 (i.e., less than a 5% chance), the result we obtained could happen too frequently for us to be confident that it was the two teaching methods that had an effect on exam performance.

Whilst there is relatively little justification why a significance level of 0.05 is used rather than 0.01 or 0.10, for example, it is widely used in academic research. However, if you want to be particularly confident in your results, you can set a more stringent level of 0.01 (a 1% chance or less; 1 in 100 chance or less).

One- and two-tailed predictions

When considering whether we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis, we need to consider the direction of the alternative hypothesis statement. For example, the alternative hypothesis that was stated earlier is:

The alternative hypothesis tells us two things. First, what predictions did we make about the effect of the independent variable(s) on the dependent variable(s)? Second, what was the predicted direction of this effect? Let's use our example to highlight these two points.

Sarah predicted that her teaching method (independent variable: teaching method), whereby she not only required her students to attend lectures, but also seminars, would have a positive effect (that is, increased) students' performance (dependent variable: exam marks). If an alternative hypothesis has a direction (and this is how you want to test it), the hypothesis is one-tailed. That is, it predicts direction of the effect. If the alternative hypothesis has stated that the effect was expected to be negative, this is also a one-tailed hypothesis.

Alternatively, a two-tailed prediction means that we do not make a choice over the direction that the effect of the experiment takes. Rather, it simply implies that the effect could be negative or positive. If Sarah had made a two-tailed prediction, the alternative hypothesis might have been:

In other words, we simply take out the word "positive", which implies the direction of our effect. In our example, making a two-tailed prediction may seem strange. After all, it would be logical to expect that "extra" tuition (going to seminar classes as well as lectures) would either have a positive effect on students' performance or no effect at all, but certainly not a negative effect. However, this is just our opinion (and hope) and certainly does not mean that we will get the effect we expect. Generally speaking, making a one-tail prediction (i.e., and testing for it this way) is frowned upon as it usually reflects the hope of a researcher rather than any certainty that it will happen. Notable exceptions to this rule are when there is only one possible way in which a change could occur. This can happen, for example, when biological activity/presence in measured. That is, a protein might be "dormant" and the stimulus you are using can only possibly "wake it up" (i.e., it cannot possibly reduce the activity of a "dormant" protein). In addition, for some statistical tests, one-tailed tests are not possible.

Rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis

Let's return finally to the question of whether we reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

If our statistical analysis shows that the significance level is below the cut-off value we have set (e.g., either 0.05 or 0.01), we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. Alternatively, if the significance level is above the cut-off value, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and cannot accept the alternative hypothesis. You should note that you cannot accept the null hypothesis, but only find evidence against it.

Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Hypothesis Testing?

How It Works

4 Step Process

The bottom line.

Fundamental Analysis

Hypothesis Testing: 4 Steps and Example

Hypothesis testing, sometimes called significance testing, is an act in statistics whereby an analyst tests an assumption regarding a population parameter. The methodology employed by the analyst depends on the nature of the data used and the reason for the analysis.

Hypothesis testing is used to assess the plausibility of a hypothesis by using sample data. Such data may come from a larger population or a data-generating process. The word "population" will be used for both of these cases in the following descriptions.

Key Takeaways

Hypothesis testing is used to assess the plausibility of a hypothesis by using sample data.
The test provides evidence concerning the plausibility of the hypothesis, given the data.
Statistical analysts test a hypothesis by measuring and examining a random sample of the population being analyzed.
The four steps of hypothesis testing include stating the hypotheses, formulating an analysis plan, analyzing the sample data, and analyzing the result.

How Hypothesis Testing Works

In hypothesis testing, an analyst tests a statistical sample, intending to provide evidence on the plausibility of the null hypothesis. Statistical analysts measure and examine a random sample of the population being analyzed. All analysts use a random population sample to test two different hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is usually a hypothesis of equality between population parameters; e.g., a null hypothesis may state that the population mean return is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis is effectively the opposite of a null hypothesis. Thus, they are mutually exclusive , and only one can be true. However, one of the two hypotheses will always be true.

The null hypothesis is a statement about a population parameter, such as the population mean, that is assumed to be true.

State the hypotheses.
Formulate an analysis plan, which outlines how the data will be evaluated.
Carry out the plan and analyze the sample data.
Analyze the results and either reject the null hypothesis, or state that the null hypothesis is plausible, given the data.

Example of Hypothesis Testing

If an individual wants to test that a penny has exactly a 50% chance of landing on heads, the null hypothesis would be that 50% is correct, and the alternative hypothesis would be that 50% is not correct. Mathematically, the null hypothesis is represented as Ho: P = 0.5. The alternative hypothesis is shown as "Ha" and is identical to the null hypothesis, except with the equal sign struck-through, meaning that it does not equal 50%.

A random sample of 100 coin flips is taken, and the null hypothesis is tested. If it is found that the 100 coin flips were distributed as 40 heads and 60 tails, the analyst would assume that a penny does not have a 50% chance of landing on heads and would reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

If there were 48 heads and 52 tails, then it is plausible that the coin could be fair and still produce such a result. In cases such as this where the null hypothesis is "accepted," the analyst states that the difference between the expected results (50 heads and 50 tails) and the observed results (48 heads and 52 tails) is "explainable by chance alone."

When Did Hypothesis Testing Begin?

Some statisticians attribute the first hypothesis tests to satirical writer John Arbuthnot in 1710, who studied male and female births in England after observing that in nearly every year, male births exceeded female births by a slight proportion. Arbuthnot calculated that the probability of this happening by chance was small, and therefore it was due to “divine providence.”

What are the Benefits of Hypothesis Testing?

Hypothesis testing helps assess the accuracy of new ideas or theories by testing them against data. This allows researchers to determine whether the evidence supports their hypothesis, helping to avoid false claims and conclusions. Hypothesis testing also provides a framework for decision-making based on data rather than personal opinions or biases. By relying on statistical analysis, hypothesis testing helps to reduce the effects of chance and confounding variables, providing a robust framework for making informed conclusions.

What are the Limitations of Hypothesis Testing?

Hypothesis testing relies exclusively on data and doesn’t provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject being studied. Additionally, the accuracy of the results depends on the quality of the available data and the statistical methods used. Inaccurate data or inappropriate hypothesis formulation may lead to incorrect conclusions or failed tests. Hypothesis testing can also lead to errors, such as analysts either accepting or rejecting a null hypothesis when they shouldn’t have. These errors may result in false conclusions or missed opportunities to identify significant patterns or relationships in the data.

Hypothesis testing refers to a statistical process that helps researchers determine the reliability of a study. By using a well-formulated hypothesis and set of statistical tests, individuals or businesses can make inferences about the population that they are studying and draw conclusions based on the data presented. All hypothesis testing methods have the same four-step process, which includes stating the hypotheses, formulating an analysis plan, analyzing the sample data, and analyzing the result.

Sage. " Introduction to Hypothesis Testing ," Page 4.

Elder Research. " Who Invented the Null Hypothesis? "

Formplus. " Hypothesis Testing: Definition, Uses, Limitations and Examples ."

Terms of Service
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Your Privacy Choices

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Biology library

Course: biology library > unit 1, the scientific method.

Controlled experiments
The scientific method and experimental design

Introduction

Make an observation.
Ask a question.
Form a hypothesis , or testable explanation.
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Scientific method example: Failure to toast

1. make an observation., 2. ask a question., 3. propose a hypothesis., 4. make predictions., 5. test the predictions..

If the toaster does toast, then the hypothesis is supported—likely correct.
If the toaster doesn't toast, then the hypothesis is not supported—likely wrong.

Logical possibility

Practical possibility, building a body of evidence, 6. iterate..

If the hypothesis was supported, we might do additional tests to confirm it, or revise it to be more specific. For instance, we might investigate why the outlet is broken.
If the hypothesis was not supported, we would come up with a new hypothesis. For instance, the next hypothesis might be that there's a broken wire in the toaster.

Want to join the conversation?

Upvote Button navigates to signup page
Downvote Button navigates to signup page
Flag Button navigates to signup page

What Is a Testable Hypothesis?

Scientific Method
Chemical Laws
Periodic Table
Projects & Experiments
Biochemistry
Physical Chemistry
Medical Chemistry
Chemistry In Everyday Life
Famous Chemists
Activities for Kids
Abbreviations & Acronyms
Weather & Climate
Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a scientific question. A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of testing, data collection, or experience. Only testable hypotheses can be used to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method .

Requirements for a Testable Hypothesis

In order to be considered testable, two criteria must be met:

It must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is true.
It must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is false.
It must be possible to reproduce the results of the hypothesis.

Examples of a Testable Hypothesis

All the following hypotheses are testable. It's important, however, to note that while it's possible to say that the hypothesis is correct, much more research would be required to answer the question " why is this hypothesis correct?"

Students who attend class have higher grades than students who skip class. This is testable because it is possible to compare the grades of students who do and do not skip class and then analyze the resulting data. Another person could conduct the same research and come up with the same results.
People exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light have a higher incidence of cancer than the norm. This is testable because it is possible to find a group of people who have been exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light and compare their cancer rates to the average.
If you put people in a dark room, then they will be unable to tell when an infrared light turns on. This hypothesis is testable because it is possible to put a group of people into a dark room, turn on an infrared light, and ask the people in the room whether or not an infrared light has been turned on.

Examples of a Hypothesis Not Written in a Testable Form

It doesn't matter whether or not you skip class. This hypothesis can't be tested because it doesn't make any actual claim regarding the outcome of skipping class. "It doesn't matter" doesn't have any specific meaning, so it can't be tested.
Ultraviolet light could cause cancer. The word "could" makes a hypothesis extremely difficult to test because it is very vague. There "could," for example, be UFOs watching us at every moment, even though it's impossible to prove that they are there!
Goldfish make better pets than guinea pigs. This is not a hypothesis; it's a matter of opinion. There is no agreed-upon definition of what a "better" pet is, so while it is possible to argue the point, there is no way to prove it.

How to Propose a Testable Hypothesis

Now that you know what a testable hypothesis is, here are tips for proposing one.

Try to write the hypothesis as an if-then statement. If you take an action, then a certain outcome is expected.
Identify the independent and dependent variable in the hypothesis. The independent variable is what you are controlling or changing. You measure the effect this has on the dependent variable.
Write the hypothesis in such a way that you can prove or disprove it. For example, a person has skin cancer, you can't prove they got it from being out in the sun. However, you can demonstrate a relationship between exposure to ultraviolet light and increased risk of skin cancer.
Make sure you are proposing a hypothesis you can test with reproducible results. If your face breaks out, you can't prove the breakout was caused by the french fries you had for dinner last night. However, you can measure whether or not eating french fries is associated with breaking out. It's a matter of gathering enough data to be able to reproduce results and draw a conclusion.
Null Hypothesis Examples
Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables
What Is the Visible Light Spectrum?
What Glows Under Black Light?
Difference Between Independent and Dependent Variables
What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
What Is a Black Light?
What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
How To Design a Science Fair Experiment
Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
Theory Definition in Science
Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples
What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A research hypothesis, in its plural form “hypotheses,” is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method .

Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding

Some key points about hypotheses:

A hypothesis expresses an expected pattern or relationship. It connects the variables under investigation.
It is stated in clear, precise terms before any data collection or analysis occurs. This makes the hypothesis testable.
A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It should be possible, even if unlikely in practice, to collect data that disconfirms rather than supports the hypothesis.
Hypotheses guide research. Scientists design studies to explicitly evaluate hypotheses about how nature works.
For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable against empirical evidence. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.
Hypotheses are informed by background knowledge and observation, but go beyond what is already known to propose an explanation of how or why something occurs.

Predictions typically arise from a thorough knowledge of the research literature, curiosity about real-world problems or implications, and integrating this to advance theory. They build on existing literature while providing new insight.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

The research hypothesis is often called the alternative or experimental hypothesis in experimental research.

It typically suggests a potential relationship between two key variables: the independent variable, which the researcher manipulates, and the dependent variable, which is measured based on those changes.

The alternative hypothesis states a relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable affects the other).

A hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a key component of the scientific method. Some key points about hypotheses:

Important hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested empirically. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.

In summary, a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement of what researchers expect to happen in a study and why. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

An experimental hypothesis predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.

It states that the results are not due to chance and are significant in supporting the theory being investigated.

The alternative hypothesis can be directional, indicating a specific direction of the effect, or non-directional, suggesting a difference without specifying its nature. It’s what researchers aim to support or demonstrate through their study.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). There will be no changes in the dependent variable due to manipulating the independent variable.

It states results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.

The null hypothesis, positing no effect or relationship, is a foundational contrast to the research hypothesis in scientific inquiry. It establishes a baseline for statistical testing, promoting objectivity by initiating research from a neutral stance.

Many statistical methods are tailored to test the null hypothesis, determining the likelihood of observed results if no true effect exists.

This dual-hypothesis approach provides clarity, ensuring that research intentions are explicit, and fosters consistency across scientific studies, enhancing the standardization and interpretability of research outcomes.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis, also known as a two-tailed hypothesis, predicts that there is a difference or relationship between two variables but does not specify the direction of this relationship.

It merely indicates that a change or effect will occur without predicting which group will have higher or lower values.

For example, “There is a difference in performance between Group A and Group B” is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the nature of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. It predicts in which direction the change will take place. (i.e., greater, smaller, less, more)

It specifies whether one variable is greater, lesser, or different from another, rather than just indicating that there’s a difference without specifying its nature.

For example, “Exercise increases weight loss” is a directional hypothesis.

Falsifiability

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be testable and irrefutable.

Falsifiability emphasizes that scientific claims shouldn’t just be confirmable but should also have the potential to be proven wrong.

It means that there should exist some potential evidence or experiment that could prove the proposition false.

However many confirming instances exist for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white,” can be falsified by observing a black swan.

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually provide evidence to support a research hypothesis.

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

Hypotheses make probabilistic predictions. They state the expected outcome if a particular relationship exists. However, a study result supporting a hypothesis does not definitively prove it is true.

All studies have limitations. There may be unknown confounding factors or issues that limit the certainty of conclusions. Additional studies may yield different results.

In science, hypotheses can realistically only be supported with some degree of confidence, not proven. The process of science is to incrementally accumulate evidence for and against hypothesized relationships in an ongoing pursuit of better models and explanations that best fit the empirical data. But hypotheses remain open to revision and rejection if that is where the evidence leads.

Disproving a hypothesis is definitive. Solid disconfirmatory evidence will falsify a hypothesis and require altering or discarding it based on the evidence.
However, confirming evidence is always open to revision. Other explanations may account for the same results, and additional or contradictory evidence may emerge over time.

We can never 100% prove the alternative hypothesis. Instead, we see if we can disprove, or reject the null hypothesis.

If we reject the null hypothesis, this doesn’t mean that our alternative hypothesis is correct but does support the alternative/experimental hypothesis.

Upon analysis of the results, an alternative hypothesis can be rejected or supported, but it can never be proven to be correct. We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist which could refute a theory.

How to Write a Hypothesis

Identify variables . The researcher manipulates the independent variable and the dependent variable is the measured outcome.
Operationalized the variables being investigated . Operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making the variables physically measurable or testable, e.g. if you are about to study aggression, you might count the number of punches given by participants.
Decide on a direction for your prediction . If there is evidence in the literature to support a specific effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis. If there are limited or ambiguous findings in the literature regarding the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis.
Make it Testable : Ensure your hypothesis can be tested through experimentation or observation. It should be possible to prove it false (principle of falsifiability).
Clear & concise language . A strong hypothesis is concise (typically one to two sentences long), and formulated using clear and straightforward language, ensuring it’s easily understood and testable.

Consider a hypothesis many teachers might subscribe to: students work better on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon (IV=Day, DV= Standard of work).

Now, if we decide to study this by giving the same group of students a lesson on a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon and then measuring their immediate recall of the material covered in each session, we would end up with the following:

The alternative hypothesis states that students will recall significantly more information on a Monday morning than on a Friday afternoon.
The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant difference in the amount recalled on a Monday morning compared to a Friday afternoon. Any difference will be due to chance or confounding factors.

More Examples

Memory : Participants exposed to classical music during study sessions will recall more items from a list than those who studied in silence.
Social Psychology : Individuals who frequently engage in social media use will report higher levels of perceived social isolation compared to those who use it infrequently.
Developmental Psychology : Children who engage in regular imaginative play have better problem-solving skills than those who don’t.
Clinical Psychology : Cognitive-behavioral therapy will be more effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety over a 6-month period compared to traditional talk therapy.
Cognitive Psychology : Individuals who multitask between various electronic devices will have shorter attention spans on focused tasks than those who single-task.
Health Psychology : Patients who practice mindfulness meditation will experience lower levels of chronic pain compared to those who don’t meditate.
Organizational Psychology : Employees in open-plan offices will report higher levels of stress than those in private offices.
Behavioral Psychology : Rats rewarded with food after pressing a lever will press it more frequently than rats who receive no reward.

Research Methodology

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

Manuscript Preparation

What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?

4 minute read
319.2K views

Table of Contents

One of the most important aspects of conducting research is constructing a strong hypothesis. But what makes a hypothesis in research effective? In this article, we’ll look at the difference between a hypothesis and a research question, as well as the elements of a good hypothesis in research. We’ll also include some examples of effective hypotheses, and what pitfalls to avoid.

What is a Hypothesis in Research?

Simply put, a hypothesis is a research question that also includes the predicted or expected result of the research. Without a hypothesis, there can be no basis for a scientific or research experiment. As such, it is critical that you carefully construct your hypothesis by being deliberate and thorough, even before you set pen to paper. Unless your hypothesis is clearly and carefully constructed, any flaw can have an adverse, and even grave, effect on the quality of your experiment and its subsequent results.

Research Question vs Hypothesis

It’s easy to confuse research questions with hypotheses, and vice versa. While they’re both critical to the Scientific Method, they have very specific differences. Primarily, a research question, just like a hypothesis, is focused and concise. But a hypothesis includes a prediction based on the proposed research, and is designed to forecast the relationship of and between two (or more) variables. Research questions are open-ended, and invite debate and discussion, while hypotheses are closed, e.g. “The relationship between A and B will be C.”

A hypothesis is generally used if your research topic is fairly well established, and you are relatively certain about the relationship between the variables that will be presented in your research. Since a hypothesis is ideally suited for experimental studies, it will, by its very existence, affect the design of your experiment. The research question is typically used for new topics that have not yet been researched extensively. Here, the relationship between different variables is less known. There is no prediction made, but there may be variables explored. The research question can be casual in nature, simply trying to understand if a relationship even exists, descriptive or comparative.

How to Write Hypothesis in Research

Writing an effective hypothesis starts before you even begin to type. Like any task, preparation is key, so you start first by conducting research yourself, and reading all you can about the topic that you plan to research. From there, you’ll gain the knowledge you need to understand where your focus within the topic will lie.

Remember that a hypothesis is a prediction of the relationship that exists between two or more variables. Your job is to write a hypothesis, and design the research, to “prove” whether or not your prediction is correct. A common pitfall is to use judgments that are subjective and inappropriate for the construction of a hypothesis. It’s important to keep the focus and language of your hypothesis objective.

An effective hypothesis in research is clearly and concisely written, and any terms or definitions clarified and defined. Specific language must also be used to avoid any generalities or assumptions.

Use the following points as a checklist to evaluate the effectiveness of your research hypothesis:

Predicts the relationship and outcome
Simple and concise – avoid wordiness
Clear with no ambiguity or assumptions about the readers’ knowledge
Observable and testable results
Relevant and specific to the research question or problem

Research Hypothesis Example

Perhaps the best way to evaluate whether or not your hypothesis is effective is to compare it to those of your colleagues in the field. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to writing a powerful research hypothesis. As you’re reading and preparing your hypothesis, you’ll also read other hypotheses. These can help guide you on what works, and what doesn’t, when it comes to writing a strong research hypothesis.

Here are a few generic examples to get you started.

Eating an apple each day, after the age of 60, will result in a reduction of frequency of physician visits.

Budget airlines are more likely to receive more customer complaints. A budget airline is defined as an airline that offers lower fares and fewer amenities than a traditional full-service airline. (Note that the term “budget airline” is included in the hypothesis.

Workplaces that offer flexible working hours report higher levels of employee job satisfaction than workplaces with fixed hours.

Each of the above examples are specific, observable and measurable, and the statement of prediction can be verified or shown to be false by utilizing standard experimental practices. It should be noted, however, that often your hypothesis will change as your research progresses.

Language Editing Plus

Elsevier’s Language Editing Plus service can help ensure that your research hypothesis is well-designed, and articulates your research and conclusions. Our most comprehensive editing package, you can count on a thorough language review by native-English speakers who are PhDs or PhD candidates. We’ll check for effective logic and flow of your manuscript, as well as document formatting for your chosen journal, reference checks, and much more.

Research Process

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

What is a Problem Statement? [with examples]

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear Civil Engineering Papers

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

22,000-year-old artifacts could rewrite ancient human history in North America

Darrin Lowery found a collection of tools in Maryland that may date to 22,000 years ago.
That would mean humans first arrived in North America thousands of years before we thought.
Most experts believe humans first arrived in North America between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago.

North and South America were the last inhabited continents that modern humans settled thousands of years ago, but when and how they reached the Americas remains a mystery.

"We don't know who these first peoples were," Todd Braje, executive director of the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, told Business Insider. We don't know "where they came from, when they arrived, the technologies that they had available," he added.

For many years, archaeologists thought the first humans to set foot in the Americas did so around 13,000 years ago. But more recently, new findings have challenged that theory, pushing the timeline back even further.

Now, a recent series of discoveries on Parsons Island, Maryland, could wind back the clock yet again. And it raises some difficult questions about early human migration across North America.

Outside the mainstream

Darrin Lowery has been hunting for artifacts on Maryland islands around the Chesapeake Bay since he was 9 years old. Over 40 years later, he's amassed a large collection of tools that he believes some of the earliest Americans used.

He found nearly 300 tools on Parsons Island and says they're around 22,000 years old. That's thousands of years before many scientists think humans first journeyed to North America.

If Lowery's hypothesis is correct, it would significantly change our ideas of how and when people started arriving in this part of the world.

However, Lowery, who mainly works as an independent geologist, hasn't published his latest work in a peer-reviewed journal, making other experts skeptical of a theory that's already a bit outside the mainstream.

Lowery doesn't mind the criticism, though. "If I'm wrong, I'm fine with that," he told Business Insider. "Prove me wrong."

When did the first modern humans reach North America?

Around 13,000 years ago something significant was happening across northern North America: The glaciers that had covered part of the continent for millennia were melting.

Archaeologists thought humans needed to wait for those glaciers to melt to migrate across this region. Otherwise, the journey through what is now Canada would have been too dangerous, with little food available along the way.

So, for most of the 20th century, the theory was that the first Americans came from Asia around 13,000 years ago, crossing the now-submerged Bering land bridge that connected Siberia and present-day Alaska. Then those humans and their ancestors made their way across the areas of the Americas with fewer glaciers.

But by the second half of the 20th century, older sites were turning up, like a 14,500-year-old site in Chile, Monte Verde. If people were that far south at the time, it meant humans had to have traveled from North America to South America well before 13,000 years ago.

"It really changed everything about what we understood about when and how people arrived to the Americas," Braje said of the Chile site. One alternative theory is that people followed the less icy Pacific Coast and then started moving east.

While individual sites are often subjects of debate, the widely accepted range of humans' first arrival in the Americas is now between 20,000 to 15,000 years ago, Braje said.

Dating 22,000-year-old artifacts

Over the course of 93 visits to Parsons Island, Lowery and other volunteers found a mix of chipped-off rock flakes, a stone for hammering, and knives.

Due to erosion, most of the artifacts fell out of the embankment that once held them.

However, nine were still stuck in the bank, and three of those dated to around 22,000 years ago.

Dating ancient artifacts like this is tricky and is often the source of contention around these sites that question our understanding and timeline of ancient human history.

For instance, most dating methods require organic material and won't work on stone tools. Instead, scientists test charcoal, pollen, and other matter found near stone artifacts.

However, if a tool shifts from its original position — like if it falls out of the embankment that's holding it — it's difficult to date it reliably.

That's why only a handful of Lowery's artifacts could be tested.

Though Lowery doesn't want to publish a paper through peer review — a process he called "antiquated" — he said he did his due diligence in dating the artifacts.

He used different methods to date the still-in-place artifacts and also sent samples to independent labs for verification.

Using radiocarbon dating that measured the amount of carbon in flakes of charcoal, an independent lab estimated the artifacts' ages to be between 20,563 and 22,656 years old.

If these artifacts are as old as the lab analysis suggests, then Lowery's discovery could rewrite our understanding of ancient American human history.

The journey from Alaska to Maryland

Around 21,000 years ago, nearly all of Canada was covered in glaciers . Therefore, one of the biggest questions with Lowery's theory is how humans could have made the trek from Alaska to Maryland 22,000 years ago when there was a vast, icy landscape in between.

But Lowery said nearly 26,000 years ago, Beringian wolves traveled through a temporary corridor between ice sheets. Humans could have used the same route, he said.

"I think this is largely a misconception that ice is an impediment," Lowery said. "It's a challenge, but humans are pretty damn smart."

Lowery admitted this is just what he called "a story," but it's one some experts refuse to entertain. One archaeologist that The Washington Post spoke with refused to comment on the non-peer-reviewed paper.

For Braje, Lowery's research is reminiscent of past debates when new discoveries pushed back the timeline for the first American arrivals.

Braje didn't dismiss Lowery's ideas outright, but he thinks they need to go through the peer-review process. "I think all these ideas are valid ones that we should be talking about," he said, "but then we have to go to the scientific evidence."

"To make big claims like this takes a lot of work, a lot of evidence, a lot of enduring critique, but that's part of the scientific process," Braje said.

Main content

Alzheimer's disease & dementia
Arthritis & Rheumatism
Attention deficit disorders
Autism spectrum disorders
Biomedical technology
Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
Endocrinology & Metabolism
Gastroenterology
Gerontology & Geriatrics
Health informatics
Inflammatory disorders
Medical economics
Medical research
Medications
Neuroscience
Obstetrics & gynaecology
Oncology & Cancer
Ophthalmology
Overweight & Obesity
Parkinson's & Movement disorders
Psychology & Psychiatry
Radiology & Imaging
Sleep disorders
Sports medicine & Kinesiology
Vaccination
Breast cancer
Cardiovascular disease
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Colon cancer
Coronary artery disease
Heart attack
Heart disease
High blood pressure
Kidney disease
Lung cancer
Multiple sclerosis
Myocardial infarction
Ovarian cancer
Post traumatic stress disorder
Rheumatoid arthritis
Schizophrenia
Skin cancer
Type 2 diabetes
Full List »

share this!

May 29, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Hitting the target with non-invasive deep brain stimulation: Potential therapy for addiction, depression and OCD

by Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Neurological disorders, such as addiction, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), affect millions of people worldwide and are often characterized by complex pathologies involving multiple brain regions and circuits. These conditions are notoriously difficult to treat due to the intricate and poorly understood nature of brain functions and the challenge of delivering therapies to deep brain structures without invasive procedures.

In the rapidly evolving field of neuroscience, non-invasive brain stimulation is a new hope for understanding and treating a myriad of neurological and psychiatric conditions without surgical intervention or implants. Researchers, led by Friedhelm Hummel, who holds the Defitchech Chair of Clinical Neuroengineering at EPFL's School of Life Sciences, and postdoc Pierre Vassiliadis, are pioneering a new approach in the field, opening frontiers in treating conditions like addiction and depression.

Their research, leveraging transcranial Temporal Interference Electric Stimulation (tTIS), specifically targets deep brain regions that are the control centers of several important cognitive functions and involved in different neurological and psychiatric pathologies. The research, published in Nature Human Behaviour , highlights the interdisciplinary approach that integrates medicine, neuroscience, computation, and engineering to improve our understanding of the brain and develop potentially life-changing therapies.

"Invasive deep brain stimulation (DBS) has already successfully been applied to the deeply seated neural control centers in order to curb addiction and treat Parkinson's, OCD or depression," says Hummel. "The key difference with our approach is that it is non-invasive, meaning that we use low-level electrical stimulation on the scalp to target these regions."

Vassiliadis, lead author of the paper, a medical doctor with a joint Ph.D., describes tTIS as using two pairs of electrodes attached to the scalp to apply weak electrical fields inside the brain.

"Up until now, we couldn't specifically target these regions with non-invasive techniques, as the low-level electrical fields would stimulate all the regions between the skull and the deeper zones—rendering any treatments ineffective. This approach allows us to selectively stimulate deep brain regions that are important in neuropsychiatric disorders," he explains.

The innovative technique is based on the concept of temporal interference, initially explored in rodent models, and now successfully translated to human applications by the EPFL team. In this experiment, one pair of electrodes is set to a frequency of 2,000 Hz, while another is set to 2,080 Hz. Thanks to detailed computational models of the brain structure, the electrodes are specifically positioned on the scalp to ensure that their signals intersect in the target region.

It is at this juncture that the magic of interference occurs: the slight frequency disparity of 80 Hz between the two currents becomes the effective stimulation frequency within the target zone. The brilliance of this method lies in its selectivity; the high base frequencies (e.g., 2,000 Hz) do not stimulate neural activity directly, leaving the intervening brain tissue unaffected and focusing the effect solely on the targeted region.

The focus of this latest research is the human striatum, a key player in reward and reinforcement mechanisms. "We're examining how reinforcement learning , essentially how we learn through rewards, can be influenced by targeting specific brain frequencies," says Vassiliadis. By applying stimulation of the striatum at 80 Hz, the team found they could disrupt its normal functioning, directly affecting the learning process.

The therapeutic potential of their work is immense, particularly for conditions like addiction, apathy and depression, where reward mechanisms play a crucial role. "In addiction, for example, people tend to over-approach rewards. Our method could help reduce this pathological overemphasis," Vassiliadis, who is also a researcher at UCLouvain's Institute of Neuroscience, points out.

Furthermore, the team is exploring how different stimulation patterns can not only disrupt but also potentially enhance brain functions. "This first step was to prove the hypothesis of 80 Hz affecting the striatum, and we did it by disrupting it's functioning. Our research also shows promise in improving motor behavior and increasing striatum activity, particularly in older adults with reduced learning abilities," Vassiliadis adds.

Hummel, a trained neurologist, sees this technology as the beginning of a new chapter in brain stimulation, offering personalized treatment with less invasive methods. "We're looking at a non-invasive approach that allows us to experiment and personalize treatment for deep brain stimulation in the early stages," he says.

Another key advantage of tTIS is its minimal side effects. Most participants in their studies reported only mild sensations on the skin, making it a highly tolerable and patient-friendly approach.

Hummel and Vassiliadis are optimistic about the impact of their research. They envision a future where non-invasive neuromodulation therapies could be readily available in hospitals, offering a cost-effective and expansive treatment scope.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Improving cell therapy by creating T-cell 'super soldiers'

5 hours ago

Study shows more than just social media use may be causing depression in young adults

More out-of-state patients seek abortions in Washington state

Researchers develop microneedle patch that can detect skin cancer early

Blood flow makes waves across the surface of the mouse brain

Study finds that memory complaints can predict biological changes in the brain

Research team creates mice that better reflect human genetic variation

6 hours ago

Research shows robotic ultrasound systems can aid doctors during surgery

7 hours ago

Researchers uncover surprising role of opioid receptors in gut development

Could a medicated foam make gene therapies more accessible?

Surgery-free brain stimulation could provide new treatment for dementia

Oct 19, 2023

Ultrasound waves zapped at the brain are being used to treat everything from hand tremors to addiction

May 24, 2024

How electrical stimulation reorganizes the brain

Jun 10, 2019

New study reveals breakthrough in understanding brain stimulation therapies

Mar 15, 2024

New brain stimulation technique shows promise for treating brain disorders

Feb 23, 2024

A noninvasive method for deep brain stimulation—Electrodes placed on the scalp could help patients with brain disease

Jun 1, 2017

Recommended for you

Proof-of-concept study pioneers new brain imaging technique through a transparent skull implant

AI helps medical professionals read confusing EEGs to save lives

8 hours ago

Researchers discover therapeutic potential of increasing MIF protein levels to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

9 hours ago

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

IMAGES

13 Different Types of Hypothesis (2024)
How to Write a Hypothesis
🏷️ Formulation of hypothesis in research. How to Write a Strong
How to write a hypothesis in 5 easy steps: (2023)
Scientific hypothesis
Hypothesis

VIDEO

Andy Rachleff on the value hypothesis and growth hypothesis
Proportion Hypothesis Testing, example 2
de Broglie Hypothesis and Derivation of de Broglie Equation
Endosymbiotic theory explained (prove that its a type of symbiosis)
The Field With One Element and The Riemann Hypothesis (Full Video)
Why greatest Mathematicians are not trying to prove Riemann Hypothesis? || #short #terencetao #maths

COMMENTS

Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is most often used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses, that arise from theories. ... This is because hypothesis testing is not designed to prove or disprove anything. It is only designed to test whether a pattern ...
7.1: Basics of Hypothesis Testing
It doesn't mean you proved the null hypothesis; it just means you can't prove the alternative hypothesis. Here is an example to demonstrate this. Example $\PageIndex{3}$ conclusion in hypothesis tests. In the U.S. court system a jury trial could be set up as a hypothesis test. To really help you see how this works, let's use OJ Simpson ...
Hypothesis Testing
A hypothesis test is a statistical inference method used to test the significance of a proposed (hypothesized) relation between population statistics (parameters) and their corresponding sample estimators. In other words, hypothesis tests are used to determine if there is enough evidence in a sample to prove a hypothesis true for the entire population. The test considers two hypotheses: the ...
S.3 Hypothesis Testing
The general idea of hypothesis testing involves: Making an initial assumption. Collecting evidence (data). Based on the available evidence (data), deciding whether to reject or not reject the initial assumption. Every hypothesis test — regardless of the population parameter involved — requires the above three steps.
T-test and Hypothesis Testing (Explained Simply)
To prove my words, I can link this article, but there are others. ... Null hypothesis (H₀) — the hypothesis that we have by default, or the accepted fact. Usually, it means the absence of an effect. By analogy with the trial process, it is "presumption of innocence" — a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is ...
Statistical Hypothesis Testing Overview
Hypothesis testing is a crucial procedure to perform when you want to make inferences about a population using a random sample. These inferences include estimating population properties such as the mean, differences between means, proportions, and the relationships between variables. This post provides an overview of statistical hypothesis testing.
9.1: Introduction to Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the goal is to see if there is sufficient statistical evidence to reject a presumed null hypothesis in favor of a conjectured alternative hypothesis.The null hypothesis is usually denoted $H_0$ while the alternative hypothesis is usually denoted $H_1$. An hypothesis test is a statistical decision; the conclusion will either be to reject the null hypothesis in favor ...
A Complete Guide to Hypothesis Testing
Photo from StepUp Analytics. Hypothesis testing is a method of statistical inference that considers the null hypothesis H₀ vs. the alternative hypothesis Ha, where we are typically looking to assess evidence against H₀. Such a test is used to compare data sets against one another, or compare a data set against some external standard. The former being a two sample test (independent or ...
Hypothesis Testing
However, in order to use hypothesis testing, you need to re-state your research hypothesis as a null and alternative hypothesis. Before you can do this, it is best to consider the process/structure involved in hypothesis testing and what you are measuring. This structure is presented on the next page. Understand the structure of hypothesis ...
Hypothesis Testing
In statistics, hypothesis testing is a critical tool. It allows us to make informed decisions about populations based on sample data. Whether you are a researcher trying to prove a scientific point, a marketer analysing A/B test results, or a manufacturer ensuring quality control, hypothesis testing plays a pivotal role.
Hypothesis Testing Guide for Data Science Beginners
Hypothesis testing is a statistical method used to evaluate a claim or hypothesis about a population parameter based on sample data. It involves making decisions about the validity of a statement, often referred to as the null hypothesis, by assessing the likelihood of observing the sample data if the null hypothesis were true.
Hypothesis Testing
The alternative hypothesis states the opposite and is usually the hypothesis you are trying to prove (e.g., the two different teaching methods did result in different exam performances). Initially, you can state these hypotheses in more general terms (e.g., using terms like "effect", "relationship", etc.), as shown below for the teaching ...
Hypothesis Testing: 4 Steps and Example
Hypothesis testing is an act in statistics whereby an analyst tests an assumption regarding a population parameter. The methodology employed by the analyst depends on the nature of the data used ...
The scientific method (article)
The scientific method. At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step: Make an observation. Ask a question. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Writing a Hypothesis for Your Science Fair Project
A hypothesis is a tentative, testable answer to a scientific question. Once a scientist has a scientific question she is interested in, the scientist reads up to find out what is already known on the topic. Then she uses that information to form a tentative answer to her scientific question. Sometimes people refer to the tentative answer as "an ...
What Is a Testable Hypothesis?
A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a scientific question. A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of testing, data collection, or experience. Only testable hypotheses can be used to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method .
Scientific hypothesis
hypothesis. science. scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an "If…then" statement summarizing the idea and in the ...
Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples
Examples. A research hypothesis, in its plural form "hypotheses," is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.
Theory vs. Hypothesis: Basics of the Scientific Method
Theory vs. Hypothesis: Basics of the Scientific Method. Written by MasterClass. Last updated: Jun 7, 2021 • 2 min read. Though you may hear the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" used interchangeably, these two scientific terms have drastically different meanings in the world of science.
What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?
Remember that a hypothesis is a prediction of the relationship that exists between two or more variables. Your job is to write a hypothesis, and design the research, to "prove" whether or not your prediction is correct. A common pitfall is to use judgments that are subjective and inappropriate for the construction of a hypothesis.
Scientists a step closer to unraveling mystery of sun's ...
Researchers behind an interdisciplinary study have put forth a new theory in a report published Wednesday in the journal Nature. In contrast to previous research that assumed the sun's magnetic ...
22,000-Year-Old Tools Add to Debate About Humans Arrival in Americas
22,000-year-old artifacts could rewrite ancient human history in North America. Jenny McGrath. May 29, 2024, 4:04 PM PDT. One of the tools Darrin Lowery found on Parsons Island. Darrin Lowery ...
Hitting the target with non-invasive deep brain stimulation: Potential
Vassiliadis, lead author of the paper, a medical doctor with a joint Ph.D., describes tTIS as using two pairs of electrodes attached to the scalp to apply weak electrical fields inside the brain ...