how to reject null hypothesis

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.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Hypothesis Testing | A Step-by-Step Guide with Easy Examples

Published on November 8, 2019 by Rebecca Bevans . Revised on June 22, 2023.

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.

There are 5 main steps in hypothesis testing:

• State your research hypothesis as a null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis (H o ) and (H a  or H 1 ).
• Collect data in a way designed to test the hypothesis.
• Perform an appropriate statistical test .
• Decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis.
• Present the findings in your results and discussion section.

Though the specific details might vary, the procedure you will use when testing a hypothesis will always follow some version of these steps.

Table of contents

Step 1: state your null and alternate hypothesis, step 2: collect data, step 3: perform a statistical test, step 4: decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis, step 5: present your findings, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about hypothesis testing.

After developing your initial research hypothesis (the prediction that you want to investigate), it is important to restate it as a null (H o ) and alternate (H a ) hypothesis so that you can test it mathematically.

The alternate hypothesis is usually your initial hypothesis that predicts a relationship between variables. The null hypothesis is a prediction of no relationship between the variables you are interested in.

• H 0 : Men are, on average, not taller than women. H a : Men are, on average, taller than women.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

For a statistical test to be valid , it is important to perform sampling and collect data in a way that is designed to test your hypothesis. If your data are not representative, then you cannot make statistical inferences about the population you are interested in.

There are a variety of statistical tests available, but they are all based on the comparison of within-group variance (how spread out the data is within a category) versus between-group variance (how different the categories are from one another).

If the between-group variance is large enough that there is little or no overlap between groups, then your statistical test will reflect that by showing a low p -value . This means it is unlikely that the differences between these groups came about by chance.

Alternatively, if there is high within-group variance and low between-group variance, then your statistical test will reflect that with a high p -value. This means it is likely that any difference you measure between groups is due to chance.

Your choice of statistical test will be based on the type of variables and the level of measurement of your collected data .

• an estimate of the difference in average height between the two groups.
• a p -value showing how likely you are to see this difference if the null hypothesis of no difference is true.

Based on the outcome of your statistical test, you will have to decide whether to reject or fail to reject your null hypothesis.

In most cases you will use the p -value generated by your statistical test to guide your decision. And in most cases, your predetermined level of significance for rejecting the null hypothesis will be 0.05 – that is, when there is a less than 5% chance that you would see these results if the null hypothesis were true.

In some cases, researchers choose a more conservative level of significance, such as 0.01 (1%). This minimizes the risk of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis ( Type I error ).

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

The results of hypothesis testing will be presented in the results and discussion sections of your research paper , dissertation or thesis .

In the results section you should give a brief summary of the data and a summary of the results of your statistical test (for example, the estimated difference between group means and associated p -value). In the discussion , you can discuss whether your initial hypothesis was supported by your results or not.

In the formal language of hypothesis testing, we talk about rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis. You will probably be asked to do this in your statistics assignments.

However, when presenting research results in academic papers we rarely talk this way. Instead, we go back to our alternate hypothesis (in this case, the hypothesis that men are on average taller than women) and state whether the result of our test did or did not support the alternate hypothesis.

If your null hypothesis was rejected, this result is interpreted as “supported the alternate hypothesis.”

These are superficial differences; you can see that they mean the same thing.

You might notice that we don’t say that we reject or fail to reject the alternate hypothesis . This is because hypothesis testing is not designed to prove or disprove anything. It is only designed to test whether a pattern we measure could have arisen spuriously, or by chance.

If we reject the null hypothesis based on our research (i.e., we find that it is unlikely that the pattern arose by chance), then we can say our test lends support to our hypothesis . But if the pattern does not pass our decision rule, meaning that it could have arisen by chance, then we say the test is inconsistent with our hypothesis .

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Descriptive statistics
• Measures of central tendency
• Correlation coefficient

Methodology

• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Types of interviews
• Cohort study
• Thematic analysis

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Survivorship bias
• Availability heuristic
• Nonresponse bias
• Regression to the mean

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bevans, R. (2023, June 22). Hypothesis Testing | A Step-by-Step Guide with Easy Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/hypothesis-testing/

Is this article helpful?

Rebecca Bevans

Other students also liked, choosing the right statistical test | types & examples, understanding p values | definition and examples, what is your plagiarism score.

P-Value And Statistical Significance: What It Is & Why It Matters

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:

The p-value in statistics quantifies the evidence against a null hypothesis. A low p-value suggests data is inconsistent with the null, potentially favoring an alternative hypothesis. Common significance thresholds are 0.05 or 0.01.

Hypothesis testing

When you perform a statistical test, a p-value helps you determine the significance of your results in relation to the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis (H0) states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). It states the results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated. Thus, the null hypothesis assumes that whatever you try to prove did not happen.

The alternative hypothesis (Ha or H1) is the one you would believe if the null hypothesis is concluded to be untrue.

The alternative hypothesis states that the independent variable affected the dependent variable, and the results are significant in supporting the theory being investigated (i.e., the results are not due to random chance).

What a p-value tells you

A p-value, or probability value, is a number describing how likely it is that your data would have occurred by random chance (i.e., that the null hypothesis is true).

The level of statistical significance is often expressed as a p-value between 0 and 1.

The smaller the p -value, the less likely the results occurred by random chance, and the stronger the evidence that you should reject the null hypothesis.

Remember, a p-value doesn’t tell you if the null hypothesis is true or false. It just tells you how likely you’d see the data you observed (or more extreme data) if the null hypothesis was true. It’s a piece of evidence, not a definitive proof.

Example: Test Statistic and p-Value

Suppose you’re conducting a study to determine whether a new drug has an effect on pain relief compared to a placebo. If the new drug has no impact, your test statistic will be close to the one predicted by the null hypothesis (no difference between the drug and placebo groups), and the resulting p-value will be close to 1. It may not be precisely 1 because real-world variations may exist. Conversely, if the new drug indeed reduces pain significantly, your test statistic will diverge further from what’s expected under the null hypothesis, and the p-value will decrease. The p-value will never reach zero because there’s always a slim possibility, though highly improbable, that the observed results occurred by random chance.

P-value interpretation

The significance level (alpha) is a set probability threshold (often 0.05), while the p-value is the probability you calculate based on your study or analysis.

A p-value less than or equal to your significance level (typically ≤ 0.05) is statistically significant.

A p-value less than or equal to a predetermined significance level (often 0.05 or 0.01) indicates a statistically significant result, meaning the observed data provide strong evidence against the null hypothesis.

This suggests the effect under study likely represents a real relationship rather than just random chance.

For instance, if you set α = 0.05, you would reject the null hypothesis if your p -value ≤ 0.05. 

It indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, as there is less than a 5% probability the null is correct (and the results are random).

Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

Example: Statistical Significance

Upon analyzing the pain relief effects of the new drug compared to the placebo, the computed p-value is less than 0.01, which falls well below the predetermined alpha value of 0.05. Consequently, you conclude that there is a statistically significant difference in pain relief between the new drug and the placebo.

What does a p-value of 0.001 mean?

A p-value of 0.001 is highly statistically significant beyond the commonly used 0.05 threshold. It indicates strong evidence of a real effect or difference, rather than just random variation.

Specifically, a p-value of 0.001 means there is only a 0.1% chance of obtaining a result at least as extreme as the one observed, assuming the null hypothesis is correct.

Such a small p-value provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis, leading to rejecting the null in favor of the alternative hypothesis.

A p-value more than the significance level (typically p > 0.05) is not statistically significant and indicates strong evidence for the null hypothesis.

This means we retain the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis. You should note that you cannot accept the null hypothesis; we can only reject it or fail to reject it.

Note : when the p-value is above your threshold of significance,  it does not mean that there is a 95% probability that the alternative hypothesis is true.

One-Tailed Test

Two-Tailed Test

How do you calculate the p-value ?

Most statistical software packages like R, SPSS, and others automatically calculate your p-value. This is the easiest and most common way.

Online resources and tables are available to estimate the p-value based on your test statistic and degrees of freedom.

These tables help you understand how often you would expect to see your test statistic under the null hypothesis.

Understanding the Statistical Test:

Different statistical tests are designed to answer specific research questions or hypotheses. Each test has its own underlying assumptions and characteristics.

For example, you might use a t-test to compare means, a chi-squared test for categorical data, or a correlation test to measure the strength of a relationship between variables.

Be aware that the number of independent variables you include in your analysis can influence the magnitude of the test statistic needed to produce the same p-value.

This factor is particularly important to consider when comparing results across different analyses.

Example: Choosing a Statistical Test

If you’re comparing the effectiveness of just two different drugs in pain relief, a two-sample t-test is a suitable choice for comparing these two groups. However, when you’re examining the impact of three or more drugs, it’s more appropriate to employ an Analysis of Variance ( ANOVA) . Utilizing multiple pairwise comparisons in such cases can lead to artificially low p-values and an overestimation of the significance of differences between the drug groups.

How to report

A statistically significant result cannot prove that a research hypothesis is correct (which implies 100% certainty).

Instead, we may state our results “provide support for” or “give evidence for” our research hypothesis (as there is still a slight probability that the results occurred by chance and the null hypothesis was correct – e.g., less than 5%).

Example: Reporting the results

In our comparison of the pain relief effects of the new drug and the placebo, we observed that participants in the drug group experienced a significant reduction in pain ( M = 3.5; SD = 0.8) compared to those in the placebo group ( M = 5.2; SD  = 0.7), resulting in an average difference of 1.7 points on the pain scale (t(98) = -9.36; p < 0.001).

The 6th edition of the APA style manual (American Psychological Association, 2010) states the following on the topic of reporting p-values:

“When reporting p values, report exact p values (e.g., p = .031) to two or three decimal places. However, report p values less than .001 as p < .001.

The tradition of reporting p values in the form p < .10, p < .05, p < .01, and so forth, was appropriate in a time when only limited tables of critical values were available.” (p. 114)

• Do not use 0 before the decimal point for the statistical value p as it cannot equal 1. In other words, write p = .001 instead of p = 0.001.
• Please pay attention to issues of italics ( p is always italicized) and spacing (either side of the = sign).
• p = .000 (as outputted by some statistical packages such as SPSS) is impossible and should be written as p < .001.
• The opposite of significant is “nonsignificant,” not “insignificant.”

Why is the p -value not enough?

A lower p-value  is sometimes interpreted as meaning there is a stronger relationship between two variables.

However, statistical significance means that it is unlikely that the null hypothesis is true (less than 5%).

To understand the strength of the difference between the two groups (control vs. experimental) a researcher needs to calculate the effect size .

When do you reject the null hypothesis?

In statistical hypothesis testing, you reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is less than or equal to the significance level (α) you set before conducting your test. The significance level is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. Commonly used significance levels are 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10.

Remember, rejecting the null hypothesis doesn’t prove the alternative hypothesis; it just suggests that the alternative hypothesis may be plausible given the observed data.

The p -value is conditional upon the null hypothesis being true but is unrelated to the truth or falsity of the alternative hypothesis.

What does p-value of 0.05 mean?

If your p-value is less than or equal to 0.05 (the significance level), you would conclude that your result is statistically significant. This means the evidence is strong enough to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis.

Are all p-values below 0.05 considered statistically significant?

No, not all p-values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant. The threshold of 0.05 is commonly used, but it’s just a convention. Statistical significance depends on factors like the study design, sample size, and the magnitude of the observed effect.

A p-value below 0.05 means there is evidence against the null hypothesis, suggesting a real effect. However, it’s essential to consider the context and other factors when interpreting results.

Researchers also look at effect size and confidence intervals to determine the practical significance and reliability of findings.

How does sample size affect the interpretation of p-values?

Sample size can impact the interpretation of p-values. A larger sample size provides more reliable and precise estimates of the population, leading to narrower confidence intervals.

With a larger sample, even small differences between groups or effects can become statistically significant, yielding lower p-values. In contrast, smaller sample sizes may not have enough statistical power to detect smaller effects, resulting in higher p-values.

Therefore, a larger sample size increases the chances of finding statistically significant results when there is a genuine effect, making the findings more trustworthy and robust.

Can a non-significant p-value indicate that there is no effect or difference in the data?

No, a non-significant p-value does not necessarily indicate that there is no effect or difference in the data. It means that the observed data do not provide strong enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

There could still be a real effect or difference, but it might be smaller or more variable than the study was able to detect.

Other factors like sample size, study design, and measurement precision can influence the p-value. It’s important to consider the entire body of evidence and not rely solely on p-values when interpreting research findings.

Can P values be exactly zero?

While a p-value can be extremely small, it cannot technically be absolute zero. When a p-value is reported as p = 0.000, the actual p-value is too small for the software to display. This is often interpreted as strong evidence against the null hypothesis. For p values less than 0.001, report as p < .001

Further Information

• P Value Calculator From T Score
• P-Value Calculator For Chi-Square
• P-values and significance tests (Kahn Academy)
• Hypothesis testing and p-values (Kahn Academy)
• Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2019). Moving to a world beyond “ p “< 0.05”.
• Criticism of using the “ p “< 0.05”.
• Publication manual of the American Psychological Association
• Statistics for Psychology Book Download

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1994). One and two sided tests of significance: Authors’ reply.  BMJ: British Medical Journal ,  309 (6958), 874.

Goodman, S. N., & Royall, R. (1988). Evidence and scientific research.  American Journal of Public Health ,  78 (12), 1568-1574.

Goodman, S. (2008, July). A dirty dozen: twelve p-value misconceptions . In  Seminars in hematology  (Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 135-140). WB Saunders.

Lang, J. M., Rothman, K. J., & Cann, C. I. (1998). That confounded P-value.  Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) ,  9 (1), 7-8.

Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples, How to State

What is the null hypothesis, how to state the null hypothesis, null hypothesis overview.

Why is it Called the “Null”?

The word “null” in this context means that it’s a commonly accepted fact that researchers work to nullify . It doesn’t mean that the statement is null (i.e. amounts to nothing) itself! (Perhaps the term should be called the “nullifiable hypothesis” as that might cause less confusion).

Why Do I need to Test it? Why not just prove an alternate one?

The short answer is, as a scientist, you are required to ; It’s part of the scientific process. Science uses a battery of processes to prove or disprove theories, making sure than any new hypothesis has no flaws. Including both a null and an alternate hypothesis is one safeguard to ensure your research isn’t flawed. Not including the null hypothesis in your research is considered very bad practice by the scientific community. If you set out to prove an alternate hypothesis without considering it, you are likely setting yourself up for failure. At a minimum, your experiment will likely not be taken seriously.

• Null hypothesis : H 0 : The world is flat.
• Alternate hypothesis: The world is round.

Several scientists, including Copernicus , set out to disprove the null hypothesis. This eventually led to the rejection of the null and the acceptance of the alternate. Most people accepted it — the ones that didn’t created the Flat Earth Society !. What would have happened if Copernicus had not disproved the it and merely proved the alternate? No one would have listened to him. In order to change people’s thinking, he first had to prove that their thinking was wrong .

How to State the Null Hypothesis from a Word Problem

You’ll be asked to convert a word problem into a hypothesis statement in statistics that will include a null hypothesis and an alternate hypothesis . Breaking your problem into a few small steps makes these problems much easier to handle.

Step 2: Convert the hypothesis to math . Remember that the average is sometimes written as μ.

H 1 : μ > 8.2

Broken down into (somewhat) English, that’s H 1 (The hypothesis): μ (the average) > (is greater than) 8.2

Step 3: State what will happen if the hypothesis doesn’t come true. If the recovery time isn’t greater than 8.2 weeks, there are only two possibilities, that the recovery time is equal to 8.2 weeks or less than 8.2 weeks.

H 0 : μ ≤ 8.2

Broken down again into English, that’s H 0 (The null hypothesis): μ (the average) ≤ (is less than or equal to) 8.2

How to State the Null Hypothesis: Part Two

But what if the researcher doesn’t have any idea what will happen.

Example Problem: A researcher is studying the effects of radical exercise program on knee surgery patients. There is a good chance the therapy will improve recovery time, but there’s also the possibility it will make it worse. Average recovery times for knee surgery patients is 8.2 weeks. 

Step 1: State what will happen if the experiment doesn’t make any difference. That’s the null hypothesis–that nothing will happen. In this experiment, if nothing happens, then the recovery time will stay at 8.2 weeks.

H 0 : μ = 8.2

Broken down into English, that’s H 0 (The null hypothesis): μ (the average) = (is equal to) 8.2

Step 2: Figure out the alternate hypothesis . The alternate hypothesis is the opposite of the null hypothesis. In other words, what happens if our experiment makes a difference?

H 1 : μ ≠ 8.2

In English again, that’s H 1 (The  alternate hypothesis): μ (the average) ≠ (is not equal to) 8.2

That’s How to State the Null Hypothesis!

Check out our Youtube channel for more stats tips!

Gonick, L. (1993). The Cartoon Guide to Statistics . HarperPerennial. Kotz, S.; et al., eds. (2006), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences , Wiley.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

• PMC5635437.1 ; 2015 Aug 25
• PMC5635437.2 ; 2016 Jul 13
• ➤ PMC5635437.3; 2016 Oct 10

Null hypothesis significance testing: a short tutorial

Cyril pernet.

1 Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences (CCBS), Neuroimaging Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Version Changes

Revised. amendments from version 2.

This v3 includes minor changes that reflect the 3rd reviewers' comments - in particular the theoretical vs. practical difference between Fisher and Neyman-Pearson. Additional information and reference is also included regarding the interpretation of p-value for low powered studies.

Peer Review Summary

Although thoroughly criticized, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) remains the statistical method of choice used to provide evidence for an effect, in biological, biomedical and social sciences. In this short tutorial, I first summarize the concepts behind the method, distinguishing test of significance (Fisher) and test of acceptance (Newman-Pearson) and point to common interpretation errors regarding the p-value. I then present the related concepts of confidence intervals and again point to common interpretation errors. Finally, I discuss what should be reported in which context. The goal is to clarify concepts to avoid interpretation errors and propose reporting practices.

The Null Hypothesis Significance Testing framework

NHST is a method of statistical inference by which an experimental factor is tested against a hypothesis of no effect or no relationship based on a given observation. The method is a combination of the concepts of significance testing developed by Fisher in 1925 and of acceptance based on critical rejection regions developed by Neyman & Pearson in 1928 . In the following I am first presenting each approach, highlighting the key differences and common misconceptions that result from their combination into the NHST framework (for a more mathematical comparison, along with the Bayesian method, see Christensen, 2005 ). I next present the related concept of confidence intervals. I finish by discussing practical aspects in using NHST and reporting practice.

Fisher, significance testing, and the p-value

The method developed by ( Fisher, 1934 ; Fisher, 1955 ; Fisher, 1959 ) allows to compute the probability of observing a result at least as extreme as a test statistic (e.g. t value), assuming the null hypothesis of no effect is true. This probability or p-value reflects (1) the conditional probability of achieving the observed outcome or larger: p(Obs≥t|H0), and (2) is therefore a cumulative probability rather than a point estimate. It is equal to the area under the null probability distribution curve from the observed test statistic to the tail of the null distribution ( Turkheimer et al. , 2004 ). The approach proposed is of ‘proof by contradiction’ ( Christensen, 2005 ), we pose the null model and test if data conform to it.

In practice, it is recommended to set a level of significance (a theoretical p-value) that acts as a reference point to identify significant results, that is to identify results that differ from the null-hypothesis of no effect. Fisher recommended using p=0.05 to judge whether an effect is significant or not as it is roughly two standard deviations away from the mean for the normal distribution ( Fisher, 1934 page 45: ‘The value for which p=.05, or 1 in 20, is 1.96 or nearly 2; it is convenient to take this point as a limit in judging whether a deviation is to be considered significant or not’). A key aspect of Fishers’ theory is that only the null-hypothesis is tested, and therefore p-values are meant to be used in a graded manner to decide whether the evidence is worth additional investigation and/or replication ( Fisher, 1971 page 13: ‘it is open to the experimenter to be more or less exacting in respect of the smallness of the probability he would require […]’ and ‘no isolated experiment, however significant in itself, can suffice for the experimental demonstration of any natural phenomenon’). How small the level of significance is, is thus left to researchers.

What is not a p-value? Common mistakes

The p-value is not an indication of the strength or magnitude of an effect . Any interpretation of the p-value in relation to the effect under study (strength, reliability, probability) is wrong, since p-values are conditioned on H0. In addition, while p-values are randomly distributed (if all the assumptions of the test are met) when there is no effect, their distribution depends of both the population effect size and the number of participants, making impossible to infer strength of effect from them.

Similarly, 1-p is not the probability to replicate an effect . Often, a small value of p is considered to mean a strong likelihood of getting the same results on another try, but again this cannot be obtained because the p-value is not informative on the effect itself ( Miller, 2009 ). Because the p-value depends on the number of subjects, it can only be used in high powered studies to interpret results. In low powered studies (typically small number of subjects), the p-value has a large variance across repeated samples, making it unreliable to estimate replication ( Halsey et al. , 2015 ).

A (small) p-value is not an indication favouring a given hypothesis . Because a low p-value only indicates a misfit of the null hypothesis to the data, it cannot be taken as evidence in favour of a specific alternative hypothesis more than any other possible alternatives such as measurement error and selection bias ( Gelman, 2013 ). Some authors have even argued that the more (a priori) implausible the alternative hypothesis, the greater the chance that a finding is a false alarm ( Krzywinski & Altman, 2013 ; Nuzzo, 2014 ).

The p-value is not the probability of the null hypothesis p(H0), of being true, ( Krzywinski & Altman, 2013 ). This common misconception arises from a confusion between the probability of an observation given the null p(Obs≥t|H0) and the probability of the null given an observation p(H0|Obs≥t) that is then taken as an indication for p(H0) (see Nickerson, 2000 ).

Neyman-Pearson, hypothesis testing, and the α-value

Neyman & Pearson (1933) proposed a framework of statistical inference for applied decision making and quality control. In such framework, two hypotheses are proposed: the null hypothesis of no effect and the alternative hypothesis of an effect, along with a control of the long run probabilities of making errors. The first key concept in this approach, is the establishment of an alternative hypothesis along with an a priori effect size. This differs markedly from Fisher who proposed a general approach for scientific inference conditioned on the null hypothesis only. The second key concept is the control of error rates . Neyman & Pearson (1928) introduced the notion of critical intervals, therefore dichotomizing the space of possible observations into correct vs. incorrect zones. This dichotomization allows distinguishing correct results (rejecting H0 when there is an effect and not rejecting H0 when there is no effect) from errors (rejecting H0 when there is no effect, the type I error, and not rejecting H0 when there is an effect, the type II error). In this context, alpha is the probability of committing a Type I error in the long run. Alternatively, Beta is the probability of committing a Type II error in the long run.

The (theoretical) difference in terms of hypothesis testing between Fisher and Neyman-Pearson is illustrated on Figure 1 . In the 1 st case, we choose a level of significance for observed data of 5%, and compute the p-value. If the p-value is below the level of significance, it is used to reject H0. In the 2 nd case, we set a critical interval based on the a priori effect size and error rates. If an observed statistic value is below and above the critical values (the bounds of the confidence region), it is deemed significantly different from H0. In the NHST framework, the level of significance is (in practice) assimilated to the alpha level, which appears as a simple decision rule: if the p-value is less or equal to alpha, the null is rejected. It is however a common mistake to assimilate these two concepts. The level of significance set for a given sample is not the same as the frequency of acceptance alpha found on repeated sampling because alpha (a point estimate) is meant to reflect the long run probability whilst the p-value (a cumulative estimate) reflects the current probability ( Fisher, 1955 ; Hubbard & Bayarri, 2003 ).

The figure was prepared with G-power for a one-sided one-sample t-test, with a sample size of 32 subjects, an effect size of 0.45, and error rates alpha=0.049 and beta=0.80. In Fisher’s procedure, only the nil-hypothesis is posed, and the observed p-value is compared to an a priori level of significance. If the observed p-value is below this level (here p=0.05), one rejects H0. In Neyman-Pearson’s procedure, the null and alternative hypotheses are specified along with an a priori level of acceptance. If the observed statistical value is outside the critical region (here [-∞ +1.69]), one rejects H0.

Acceptance or rejection of H0?

The acceptance level α can also be viewed as the maximum probability that a test statistic falls into the rejection region when the null hypothesis is true ( Johnson, 2013 ). Therefore, one can only reject the null hypothesis if the test statistics falls into the critical region(s), or fail to reject this hypothesis. In the latter case, all we can say is that no significant effect was observed, but one cannot conclude that the null hypothesis is true. This is another common mistake in using NHST: there is a profound difference between accepting the null hypothesis and simply failing to reject it ( Killeen, 2005 ). By failing to reject, we simply continue to assume that H0 is true, which implies that one cannot argue against a theory from a non-significant result (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). To accept the null hypothesis, tests of equivalence ( Walker & Nowacki, 2011 ) or Bayesian approaches ( Dienes, 2014 ; Kruschke, 2011 ) must be used.

Confidence intervals

Confidence intervals (CI) are builds that fail to cover the true value at a rate of alpha, the Type I error rate ( Morey & Rouder, 2011 ) and therefore indicate if observed values can be rejected by a (two tailed) test with a given alpha. CI have been advocated as alternatives to p-values because (i) they allow judging the statistical significance and (ii) provide estimates of effect size. Assuming the CI (a)symmetry and width are correct (but see Wilcox, 2012 ), they also give some indication about the likelihood that a similar value can be observed in future studies. For future studies of the same sample size, 95% CI give about 83% chance of replication success ( Cumming & Maillardet, 2006 ). If sample sizes however differ between studies, CI do not however warranty any a priori coverage.

Although CI provide more information, they are not less subject to interpretation errors (see Savalei & Dunn, 2015 for a review). The most common mistake is to interpret CI as the probability that a parameter (e.g. the population mean) will fall in that interval X% of the time. The correct interpretation is that, for repeated measurements with the same sample sizes, taken from the same population, X% of times the CI obtained will contain the true parameter value ( Tan & Tan, 2010 ). The alpha value has the same interpretation as testing against H0, i.e. we accept that 1-alpha CI are wrong in alpha percent of the times in the long run. This implies that CI do not allow to make strong statements about the parameter of interest (e.g. the mean difference) or about H1 ( Hoekstra et al. , 2014 ). To make a statement about the probability of a parameter of interest (e.g. the probability of the mean), Bayesian intervals must be used.

The (correct) use of NHST

NHST has always been criticized, and yet is still used every day in scientific reports ( Nickerson, 2000 ). One question to ask oneself is what is the goal of a scientific experiment at hand? If the goal is to establish a discrepancy with the null hypothesis and/or establish a pattern of order, because both requires ruling out equivalence, then NHST is a good tool ( Frick, 1996 ; Walker & Nowacki, 2011 ). If the goal is to test the presence of an effect and/or establish some quantitative values related to an effect, then NHST is not the method of choice since testing is conditioned on H0.

While a Bayesian analysis is suited to estimate that the probability that a hypothesis is correct, like NHST, it does not prove a theory on itself, but adds its plausibility ( Lindley, 2000 ). No matter what testing procedure is used and how strong results are, ( Fisher, 1959 p13) reminds us that ‘ […] no isolated experiment, however significant in itself, can suffice for the experimental demonstration of any natural phenomenon'. Similarly, the recent statement of the American Statistical Association ( Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016 ) makes it clear that conclusions should be based on the researchers understanding of the problem in context, along with all summary data and tests, and that no single value (being p-values, Bayesian factor or else) can be used support or invalidate a theory.

What to report and how?

Considering that quantitative reports will always have more information content than binary (significant or not) reports, we can always argue that raw and/or normalized effect size, confidence intervals, or Bayes factor must be reported. Reporting everything can however hinder the communication of the main result(s), and we should aim at giving only the information needed, at least in the core of a manuscript. Here I propose to adopt optimal reporting in the result section to keep the message clear, but have detailed supplementary material. When the hypothesis is about the presence/absence or order of an effect, and providing that a study has sufficient power, NHST is appropriate and it is sufficient to report in the text the actual p-value since it conveys the information needed to rule out equivalence. When the hypothesis and/or the discussion involve some quantitative value, and because p-values do not inform on the effect, it is essential to report on effect sizes ( Lakens, 2013 ), preferably accompanied with confidence or credible intervals. The reasoning is simply that one cannot predict and/or discuss quantities without accounting for variability. For the reader to understand and fully appreciate the results, nothing else is needed.

Because science progress is obtained by cumulating evidence ( Rosenthal, 1991 ), scientists should also consider the secondary use of the data. With today’s electronic articles, there are no reasons for not including all of derived data: mean, standard deviations, effect size, CI, Bayes factor should always be included as supplementary tables (or even better also share raw data). It is also essential to report the context in which tests were performed – that is to report all of the tests performed (all t, F, p values) because of the increase type one error rate due to selective reporting (multiple comparisons and p-hacking problems - Ioannidis, 2005 ). Providing all of this information allows (i) other researchers to directly and effectively compare their results in quantitative terms (replication of effects beyond significance, Open Science Collaboration, 2015 ), (ii) to compute power to future studies ( Lakens & Evers, 2014 ), and (iii) to aggregate results for meta-analyses whilst minimizing publication bias ( van Assen et al. , 2014 ).

[version 3; referees: 1 approved

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

• Christensen R: Testing Fisher, Neyman, Pearson, and Bayes. The American Statistician. 2005; 59 ( 2 ):121–126. 10.1198/000313005X20871 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cumming G, Maillardet R: Confidence intervals and replication: Where will the next mean fall? Psychological Methods. 2006; 11 ( 3 ):217–227. 10.1037/1082-989X.11.3.217 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dienes Z: Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Front Psychol. 2014; 5 :781. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher RA: Statistical Methods for Research Workers . (Vol. 5th Edition). Edinburgh, UK: Oliver and Boyd.1934. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher RA: Statistical Methods and Scientific Induction. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B. 1955; 17 ( 1 ):69–78. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher RA: Statistical methods and scientific inference . (2nd ed.). NewYork: Hafner Publishing,1959. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher RA: The Design of Experiments . Hafner Publishing Company, New-York.1971. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]
• Frick RW: The appropriate use of null hypothesis testing. Psychol Methods. 1996; 1 ( 4 ):379–390. 10.1037/1082-989X.1.4.379 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelman A: P values and statistical practice. Epidemiology. 2013; 24 ( 1 ):69–72. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31827886f7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halsey LG, Curran-Everett D, Vowler SL, et al.: The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nat Methods. 2015; 12 ( 3 ):179–85. 10.1038/nmeth.3288 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoekstra R, Morey RD, Rouder JN, et al.: Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Psychon Bull Rev. 2014; 21 ( 5 ):1157–1164. 10.3758/s13423-013-0572-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hubbard R, Bayarri MJ: Confusion over measures of evidence (p’s) versus errors ([alpha]’s) in classical statistical testing. The American Statistician. 2003; 57 ( 3 ):171–182. 10.1198/0003130031856 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannidis JP: Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2 ( 8 ):e124. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson VE: Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110 ( 48 ):19313–19317. 10.1073/pnas.1313476110 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killeen PR: An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests. Psychol Sci. 2005; 16 ( 5 ):345–353. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01538.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruschke JK: Bayesian Assessment of Null Values Via Parameter Estimation and Model Comparison. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011; 6 ( 3 ):299–312. 10.1177/1745691611406925 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krzywinski M, Altman N: Points of significance: Significance, P values and t -tests. Nat Methods. 2013; 10 ( 11 ):1041–1042. 10.1038/nmeth.2698 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakens D: Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t -tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013; 4 :863. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakens D, Evers ER: Sailing From the Seas of Chaos Into the Corridor of Stability: Practical Recommendations to Increase the Informational Value of Studies. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014; 9 ( 3 ):278–292. 10.1177/1745691614528520 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindley D: The philosophy of statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 2000; 49 ( 3 ):293–337. 10.1111/1467-9884.00238 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller J: What is the probability of replicating a statistically significant effect? Psychon Bull Rev. 2009; 16 ( 4 ):617–640. 10.3758/PBR.16.4.617 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morey RD, Rouder JN: Bayes factor approaches for testing interval null hypotheses. Psychol Methods. 2011; 16 ( 4 ):406–419. 10.1037/a0024377 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neyman J, Pearson ES: On the Use and Interpretation of Certain Test Criteria for Purposes of Statistical Inference: Part I. Biometrika. 1928; 20A ( 1/2 ):175–240. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00245 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neyman J, Pearson ES: On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A. 1933; 231 ( 694–706 ):289–337. 10.1098/rsta.1933.0009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nickerson RS: Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol Methods. 2000; 5 ( 2 ):241–301. 10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.241 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuzzo R: Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature. 2014; 506 ( 7487 ):150–152. 10.1038/506150a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Open Science Collaboration. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349 ( 6251 ):aac4716. 10.1126/science.aac4716 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R: Cumulating psychology: an appreciation of Donald T. Campbell. Psychol Sci. 1991; 2 ( 4 ):213–221. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00138.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savalei V, Dunn E: Is the call to abandon p -values the red herring of the replicability crisis? Front Psychol. 2015; 6 :245. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00245 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan SH, Tan SB: The Correct Interpretation of Confidence Intervals. Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare. 2010; 19 ( 3 ):276–278. 10.1177/201010581001900316 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turkheimer FE, Aston JA, Cunningham VJ: On the logic of hypothesis testing in functional imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004; 31 ( 5 ):725–732. 10.1007/s00259-003-1387-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Assen MA, van Aert RC, Nuijten MB, et al.: Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results. PLoS One. 2014; 9 ( 1 ):e84896. 10.1371/journal.pone.0084896 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker E, Nowacki AS: Understanding equivalence and noninferiority testing. J Gen Intern Med. 2011; 26 ( 2 ):192–196. 10.1007/s11606-010-1513-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA: The ASA’s Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician. 2016; 70 ( 2 ):129–133. 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilcox R: Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing . Edition 3, Academic Press, Elsevier: Oxford, UK, ISBN: 978-0-12-386983-8.2012. Reference Source [ Google Scholar ]

Referee response for version 3

Dorothy vera margaret bishop.

1 Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

I can see from the history of this paper that the author has already been very responsive to reviewer comments, and that the process of revising has now been quite protracted.

That makes me reluctant to suggest much more, but I do see potential here for making the paper more impactful. So my overall view is that, once a few typos are fixed (see below), this could be published as is, but I think there is an issue with the potential readership and that further revision could overcome this.

I suspect my take on this is rather different from other reviewers, as I do not regard myself as a statistics expert, though I am on the more quantitative end of the continuum of psychologists and I try to keep up to date. I think I am quite close to the target readership , insofar as I am someone who was taught about statistics ages ago and uses stats a lot, but never got adequate training in the kinds of topic covered by this paper. The fact that I am aware of controversies around the interpretation of confidence intervals etc is simply because I follow some discussions of this on social media. I am therefore very interested to have a clear account of these issues.

This paper contains helpful information for someone in this position, but it is not always clear, and I felt the relevance of some of the content was uncertain. So here are some recommendations:

• As one previous reviewer noted, it’s questionable that there is a need for a tutorial introduction, and the limited length of this article does not lend itself to a full explanation. So it might be better to just focus on explaining as clearly as possible the problems people have had in interpreting key concepts. I think a title that made it clear this was the content would be more appealing than the current one.
• P 3, col 1, para 3, last sentence. Although statisticians always emphasise the arbitrary nature of p < .05, we all know that in practice authors who use other values are likely to have their analyses queried. I wondered whether it would be useful here to note that in some disciplines different cutoffs are traditional, e.g. particle physics. Or you could cite David Colquhoun’s paper in which he recommends using p < .001 ( http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/140216) - just to be clear that the traditional p < .05 has been challenged.

What I can’t work out is how you would explain the alpha from Neyman-Pearson in the same way (though I can see from Figure 1 that with N-P you could test an alternative hypothesis, such as the idea that the coin would be heads 75% of the time).

‘By failing to reject, we simply continue to assume that H0 is true, which implies that one cannot….’ have ‘In failing to reject, we do not assume that H0 is true; one cannot argue against a theory from a non-significant result.’

I felt most readers would be interested to read about tests of equivalence and Bayesian approaches, but many would be unfamiliar with these and might like to see an example of how they work in practice – if space permitted.

• Confidence intervals: I simply could not understand the first sentence – I wondered what was meant by ‘builds’ here. I understand about difficulties in comparing CI across studies when sample sizes differ, but I did not find the last sentence on p 4 easy to understand.
• P 5: The sentence starting: ‘The alpha value has the same interpretation’ was also hard to understand, especially the term ‘1-alpha CI’. Here too I felt some concrete illustration might be helpful to the reader. And again, I also found the reference to Bayesian intervals tantalising – I think many readers won’t know how to compute these and something like a figure comparing a traditional CI with a Bayesian interval and giving a source for those who want to read on would be very helpful. The reference to ‘credible intervals’ in the penultimate paragraph is very unclear and needs a supporting reference – most readers will not be familiar with this concept.

P 3, col 1, para 2, line 2; “allows us to compute”

P 3, col 2, para 2, ‘probability of replicating’

P 3, col 2, para 2, line 4 ‘informative about’

P 3, col 2, para 4, line 2 delete ‘of’

P 3, col 2, para 5, line 9 – ‘conditioned’ is either wrong or too technical here: would ‘based’ be acceptable as alternative wording

P 3, col 2, para 5, line 13 ‘This dichotomisation allows one to distinguish’

P 3, col 2, para 5, last sentence, delete ‘Alternatively’.

P 3, col 2, last para line 2 ‘first’

P 4, col 2, para 2, last sentence is hard to understand; not sure if this is better: ‘If sample sizes differ between studies, the distribution of CIs cannot be specified a priori’

P 5, col 1, para 2, ‘a pattern of order’ – I did not understand what was meant by this

P 5, col 1, para 2, last sentence unclear: possible rewording: “If the goal is to test the size of an effect then NHST is not the method of choice, since testing can only reject the null hypothesis.’ (??)

P 5, col 1, para 3, line 1 delete ‘that’

P 5, col 1, para 3, line 3 ‘on’ -> ‘by’

P 5, col 2, para 1, line 4 , rather than ‘Here I propose to adopt’ I suggest ‘I recommend adopting’

P 5, col 2, para 1, line 13 ‘with’ -> ‘by’

P 5, col 2, para 1 – recommend deleting last sentence

P 5, col 2, para 2, line 2 ‘consider’ -> ‘anticipate’

P 5, col 2, para 2, delete ‘should always be included’

P 5, col 2, para 2, ‘type one’ -> ‘Type I’

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

The University of Edinburgh, UK

I wondered about changing the focus slightly and modifying the title to reflect this to say something like: Null hypothesis significance testing: a guide to commonly misunderstood concepts and recommendations for good practice

Thank you for the suggestion – you indeed saw the intention behind the ‘tutorial’ style of the paper.

• P 3, col 1, para 3, last sentence. Although statisticians always emphasise the arbitrary nature of p < .05, we all know that in practice authors who use other values are likely to have their analyses queried. I wondered whether it would be useful here to note that in some disciplines different cutoffs are traditional, e.g. particle physics. Or you could cite David Colquhoun’s paper in which he recommends using p < .001 ( http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/140216)  - just to be clear that the traditional p < .05 has been challenged.

I have added a sentence on this citing Colquhoun 2014 and the new Benjamin 2017 on using .005.

I agree that this point is always hard to appreciate, especially because it seems like in practice it makes little difference. I added a paragraph but using reaction times rather than a coin toss – thanks for the suggestion.

Added an example based on new table 1, following figure 1 – giving CI, equivalence tests and Bayes Factor (with refs to easy to use tools)

Changed builds to constructs (this simply means they are something we build) and added that the implication that probability coverage is not warranty when sample size change, is that we cannot compare CI.

I changed ‘ i.e. we accept that 1-alpha CI are wrong in alpha percent of the times in the long run’ to ‘, ‘e.g. a 95% CI is wrong in 5% of the times in the long run (i.e. if we repeat the experiment many times).’ – for Bayesian intervals I simply re-cited Morey & Rouder, 2011.

It is not the CI cannot be specified, it’s that the interval is not predictive of anything anymore! I changed it to ‘If sample sizes, however, differ between studies, there is no warranty that a CI from one study will be true at the rate alpha in a different study, which implies that CI cannot be compared across studies at this is rarely the same sample sizes’

I added (i.e. establish that A > B) – we test that conditions are ordered, but without further specification of the probability of that effect nor its size

Yes it works – thx

P 5, col 2, para 2, ‘type one’ -> ‘Type I’ 

Typos fixed, and suggestions accepted – thanks for that.

Stephen J. Senn

1 Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, L-1445, Luxembourg

The revisions are OK for me, and I have changed my status to Approved.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Referee response for version 2

On the whole I think that this article is reasonable, my main reservation being that I have my doubts on whether the literature needs yet another tutorial on this subject.

A further reservation I have is that the author, following others, stresses what in my mind is a relatively unimportant distinction between the Fisherian and Neyman-Pearson (NP) approaches. The distinction stressed by many is that the NP approach leads to a dichotomy accept/reject based on probabilities established in advance, whereas the Fisherian approach uses tail area probabilities calculated from the observed statistic. I see this as being unimportant and not even true. Unless one considers that the person carrying out a hypothesis test (original tester) is mandated to come to a conclusion on behalf of all scientific posterity, then one must accept that any remote scientist can come to his or her conclusion depending on the personal type I error favoured. To operate the results of an NP test carried out by the original tester, the remote scientist then needs to know the p-value. The type I error rate is then compared to this to come to a personal accept or reject decision (1). In fact Lehmann (2), who was an important developer of and proponent of the NP system, describes exactly this approach as being good practice. (See Testing Statistical Hypotheses, 2nd edition P70). Thus using tail-area probabilities calculated from the observed statistics does not constitute an operational difference between the two systems.

A more important distinction between the Fisherian and NP systems is that the former does not use alternative hypotheses(3). Fisher's opinion was that the null hypothesis was more primitive than the test statistic but that the test statistic was more primitive than the alternative hypothesis. Thus, alternative hypotheses could not be used to justify choice of test statistic. Only experience could do that.

Further distinctions between the NP and Fisherian approach are to do with conditioning and whether a null hypothesis can ever be accepted.

I have one minor quibble about terminology. As far as I can see, the author uses the usual term 'null hypothesis' and the eccentric term 'nil hypothesis' interchangeably. It would be simpler if the latter were abandoned.

Referee response for version 1

Marcel alm van assen.

1 Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburgh University, Tilburg, Netherlands

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is a difficult topic, with misunderstandings arising easily. Many texts, including basic statistics books, deal with the topic, and attempt to explain it to students and anyone else interested. I would refer to a good basic text book, for a detailed explanation of NHST, or to a specialized article when wishing an explaining the background of NHST. So, what is the added value of a new text on NHST? In any case, the added value should be described at the start of this text. Moreover, the topic is so delicate and difficult that errors, misinterpretations, and disagreements are easy. I attempted to show this by giving comments to many sentences in the text.

Abstract: “null hypothesis significance testing is the statistical method of choice in biological, biomedical and social sciences to investigate if an effect is likely”. No, NHST is the method to test the hypothesis of no effect.

Intro: “Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is a method of statistical inference by which an observation is tested against a hypothesis of no effect or no relationship.” What is an ‘observation’? NHST is difficult to describe in one sentence, particularly here. I would skip this sentence entirely, here.

Section on Fisher; also explain the one-tailed test.

Section on Fisher; p(Obs|H0) does not reflect the verbal definition (the ‘or more extreme’ part).

Section on Fisher; use a reference and citation to Fisher’s interpretation of the p-value

Section on Fisher; “This was however only intended to be used as an indication that there is something in the data that deserves further investigation. The reason for this is that only H0 is tested whilst the effect under study is not itself being investigated.” First sentence, can you give a reference? Many people say a lot about Fisher’s intentions, but the good man is dead and cannot reply… Second sentence is a bit awkward, because the effect is investigated in a way, by testing the H0.

Section on p-value; Layout and structure can be improved greatly, by first again stating what the p-value is, and then statement by statement, what it is not, using separate lines for each statement. Consider adding that the p-value is randomly distributed under H0 (if all the assumptions of the test are met), and that under H1 the p-value is a function of population effect size and N; the larger each is, the smaller the p-value generally is.

Skip the sentence “If there is no effect, we should replicate the absence of effect with a probability equal to 1-p”. Not insightful, and you did not discuss the concept ‘replicate’ (and do not need to).

Skip the sentence “The total probability of false positives can also be obtained by aggregating results ( Ioannidis, 2005 ).” Not strongly related to p-values, and introduces unnecessary concepts ‘false positives’ (perhaps later useful) and ‘aggregation’.

Consider deleting; “If there is an effect however, the probability to replicate is a function of the (unknown) population effect size with no good way to know this from a single experiment ( Killeen, 2005 ).”

The following sentence; “ Finally, a (small) p-value  is not an indication favouring a hypothesis . A low p-value indicates a misfit of the null hypothesis to the data and cannot be taken as evidence in favour of a specific alternative hypothesis more than any other possible alternatives such as measurement error and selection bias ( Gelman, 2013 ).” is surely not mainstream thinking about NHST; I would surely delete that sentence. In NHST, a p-value is used for testing the H0. Why did you not yet discuss significance level? Yes, before discussing what is not a p-value, I would explain NHST (i.e., what it is and how it is used). 

Also the next sentence “The more (a priori) implausible the alternative hypothesis, the greater the chance that a finding is a false alarm ( Krzywinski & Altman, 2013 ;  Nuzzo, 2014 ).“ is not fully clear to me. This is a Bayesian statement. In NHST, no likelihoods are attributed to hypotheses; the reasoning is “IF H0 is true, then…”.

Last sentence: “As  Nickerson (2000)  puts it ‘theory corroboration requires the testing of multiple predictions because the chance of getting statistically significant results for the wrong reasons in any given case is high’.” What is relation of this sentence to the contents of this section, precisely?

Next section: “For instance, we can estimate that the probability of a given F value to be in the critical interval [+2 +∞] is less than 5%” This depends on the degrees of freedom.

“When there is no effect (H0 is true), the erroneous rejection of H0 is known as type I error and is equal to the p-value.” Strange sentence. The Type I error is the probability of erroneously rejecting the H0 (so, when it is true). The p-value is … well, you explained it before; it surely does not equal the Type I error.

Consider adding a figure explaining the distinction between Fisher’s logic and that of Neyman and Pearson.

“When the test statistics falls outside the critical region(s)” What is outside?

“There is a profound difference between accepting the null hypothesis and simply failing to reject it ( Killeen, 2005 )” I agree with you, but perhaps you may add that some statisticians simply define “accept H0’” as obtaining a p-value larger than the significance level. Did you already discuss the significance level, and it’s mostly used values?

“To accept or reject equally the null hypothesis, Bayesian approaches ( Dienes, 2014 ;  Kruschke, 2011 ) or confidence intervals must be used.” Is ‘reject equally’ appropriate English? Also using Cis, one cannot accept the H0.

Do you start discussing alpha only in the context of Cis?

“CI also indicates the precision of the estimate of effect size, but unless using a percentile bootstrap approach, they require assumptions about distributions which can lead to serious biases in particular regarding the symmetry and width of the intervals ( Wilcox, 2012 ).” Too difficult, using new concepts. Consider deleting.

“Assuming the CI (a)symmetry and width are correct, this gives some indication about the likelihood that a similar value can be observed in future studies, with 95% CI giving about 83% chance of replication success ( Lakens & Evers, 2014 ).” This statement is, in general, completely false. It very much depends on the sample sizes of both studies. If the replication study has a much, much, much larger N, then the probability that the original CI will contain the effect size of the replication approaches (1-alpha)*100%. If the original study has a much, much, much larger N, then the probability that the original Ci will contain the effect size of the replication study approaches 0%.

“Finally, contrary to p-values, CI can be used to accept H0. Typically, if a CI includes 0, we cannot reject H0. If a critical null region is specified rather than a single point estimate, for instance [-2 +2] and the CI is included within the critical null region, then H0 can be accepted. Importantly, the critical region must be specified a priori and cannot be determined from the data themselves.” No. H0 cannot be accepted with Cis.

“The (posterior) probability of an effect can however not be obtained using a frequentist framework.” Frequentist framework? You did not discuss that, yet.

“X% of times the CI obtained will contain the same parameter value”. The same? True, you mean?

“e.g. X% of the times the CI contains the same mean” I do not understand; which mean?

“The alpha value has the same interpretation as when using H0, i.e. we accept that 1-alpha CI are wrong in alpha percent of the times. “ What do you mean, CI are wrong? Consider rephrasing.

“To make a statement about the probability of a parameter of interest, likelihood intervals (maximum likelihood) and credibility intervals (Bayes) are better suited.” ML gives the likelihood of the data given the parameter, not the other way around.

“Many of the disagreements are not on the method itself but on its use.” Bayesians may disagree.

“If the goal is to establish the likelihood of an effect and/or establish a pattern of order, because both requires ruling out equivalence, then NHST is a good tool ( Frick, 1996 )” NHST does not provide evidence on the likelihood of an effect.

“If the goal is to establish some quantitative values, then NHST is not the method of choice.” P-values are also quantitative… this is not a precise sentence. And NHST may be used in combination with effect size estimation (this is even recommended by, e.g., the American Psychological Association (APA)).

“Because results are conditioned on H0, NHST cannot be used to establish beliefs.” It can reinforce some beliefs, e.g., if H0 or any other hypothesis, is true.

“To estimate the probability of a hypothesis, a Bayesian analysis is a better alternative.” It is the only alternative?

“Note however that even when a specific quantitative prediction from a hypothesis is shown to be true (typically testing H1 using Bayes), it does not prove the hypothesis itself, it only adds to its plausibility.” How can we show something is true?

I do not agree on the contents of the last section on ‘minimal reporting’. I prefer ‘optimal reporting’ instead, i.e., the reporting the information that is essential to the interpretation of the result, to any ready, which may have other goals than the writer of the article. This reporting includes, for sure, an estimate of effect size, and preferably a confidence interval, which is in line with recommendations of the APA.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

The idea of this short review was to point to common interpretation errors (stressing again and again that we are under H0) being in using p-values or CI, and also proposing reporting practices to avoid bias. This is now stated at the end of abstract.

Regarding text books, it is clear that many fail to clearly distinguish Fisher/Pearson/NHST, see Glinet et al (2012) J. Exp Education 71, 83-92. If you have 1 or 2 in mind that you know to be good, I’m happy to include them.

I agree – yet people use it to investigate (not test) if an effect is likely. The issue here is wording. What about adding this distinction at the end of the sentence?: ‘null hypothesis significance testing is the statistical method of choice in biological, biomedical and social sciences used to investigate if an effect is likely, even though it actually tests for the hypothesis of no effect’.

I think a definition is needed, as it offers a starting point. What about the following: ‘NHST is a method of statistical inference by which an experimental factor is tested against a hypothesis of no effect or no relationship based on a given observation’

The section on Fisher has been modified (more or less) as suggested: (1) avoiding talking about one or two tailed tests (2) updating for p(Obs≥t|H0) and (3) referring to Fisher more explicitly (ie pages from articles and book) ; I cannot tell his intentions but these quotes leave little space to alternative interpretations.

The reasoning here is as you state yourself, part 1: ‘a p-value is used for testing the H0; and part 2: ‘no likelihoods are attributed to hypotheses’ it follows we cannot favour a hypothesis. It might seems contentious but this is the case that all we can is to reject the null – how could we favour a specific alternative hypothesis from there? This is explored further down the manuscript (and I now point to that) – note that we do not need to be Bayesian to favour a specific H1, all I’m saying is this cannot be attained with a p-value.

The point was to emphasise that a p value is not there to tell us a given H1 is true and can only be achieved through multiple predictions and experiments. I deleted it for clarity.

This sentence has been removed

Indeed, you are right and I have modified the text accordingly. When there is no effect (H0 is true), the erroneous rejection of H0 is known as type 1 error. Importantly, the type 1 error rate, or alpha value is determined a priori. It is a common mistake but the level of significance (for a given sample) is not the same as the frequency of acceptance alpha found on repeated sampling (Fisher, 1955).

A figure is now presented – with levels of acceptance, critical region, level of significance and p-value.

I should have clarified further here – as I was having in mind tests of equivalence. To clarify, I simply states now: ‘To accept the null hypothesis, tests of equivalence or Bayesian approaches must be used.’

It is now presented in the paragraph before.

Yes, you are right, I completely overlooked this problem. The corrected sentence (with more accurate ref) is now “Assuming the CI (a)symmetry and width are correct, this gives some indication about the likelihood that a similar value can be observed in future studies. For future studies of the same sample size, 95% CI giving about 83% chance of replication success (Cumming and Mallardet, 2006). If sample sizes differ between studies, CI do not however warranty any a priori coverage”.

Again, I had in mind equivalence testing, but in both cases you are right we can only reject and I therefore removed that sentence.

Yes, p-values must be interpreted in context with effect size, but this is not what people do. The point here is to be pragmatic, does and don’t. The sentence was changed.

Not for testing, but for probability, I am not aware of anything else.

Cumulative evidence is, in my opinion, the only way to show it. Even in hard science like physics multiple experiments. In the recent CERN study on finding Higgs bosons, 2 different and complementary experiments ran in parallel – and the cumulative evidence was taken as a proof of the true existence of Higgs bosons.

Daniel Lakens

1 School of Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands

I appreciate the author's attempt to write a short tutorial on NHST. Many people don't know how to use it, so attempts to educate people are always worthwhile. However, I don't think the current article reaches it's aim. For one, I think it might be practically impossible to explain a lot in such an ultra short paper - every section would require more than 2 pages to explain, and there are many sections. Furthermore, there are some excellent overviews, which, although more extensive, are also much clearer (e.g., Nickerson, 2000 ). Finally, I found many statements to be unclear, and perhaps even incorrect (noted below). Because there is nothing worse than creating more confusion on such a topic, I have extremely high standards before I think such a short primer should be indexed. I note some examples of unclear or incorrect statements below. I'm sorry I can't make a more positive recommendation.

“investigate if an effect is likely” – ambiguous statement. I think you mean, whether the observed DATA is probable, assuming there is no effect?

The Fisher (1959) reference is not correct – Fischer developed his method much earlier.

“This p-value thus reflects the conditional probability of achieving the observed outcome or larger, p(Obs|H0)” – please add 'assuming the null-hypothesis is true'.

“p(Obs|H0)” – explain this notation for novices.

“Following Fisher, the smaller the p-value, the greater the likelihood that the null hypothesis is false.”  This is wrong, and any statement about this needs to be much more precise. I would suggest direct quotes.

“there is something in the data that deserves further investigation” –unclear sentence.

“The reason for this” – unclear what ‘this’ refers to.

“ not the probability of the null hypothesis of being true, p(H0)” – second of can be removed?

“Any interpretation of the p-value in relation to the effect under study (strength, reliability, probability) is indeed

wrong, since the p-value is conditioned on H0”  - incorrect. A big problem is that it depends on the sample size, and that the probability of a theory depends on the prior.

“If there is no effect, we should replicate the absence of effect with a probability equal to 1-p.” I don’t understand this, but I think it is incorrect.

“The total probability of false positives can also be obtained by aggregating results (Ioannidis, 2005).” Unclear, and probably incorrect.

“By failing to reject, we simply continue to assume that H0 is true, which implies that one cannot, from a nonsignificant result, argue against a theory” – according to which theory? From a NP perspective, you can ACT as if the theory is false.

“(Lakens & Evers, 2014”) – we are not the original source, which should be cited instead.

“ Typically, if a CI includes 0, we cannot reject H0.”  - when would this not be the case? This assumes a CI of 1-alpha.

“If a critical null region is specified rather than a single point estimate, for instance [-2 +2] and the CI is included within the critical null region, then H0 can be accepted.” – you mean practically, or formally? I’m pretty sure only the former.

The section on ‘The (correct) use of NHST’ seems to conclude only Bayesian statistics should be used. I don’t really agree.

“ we can always argue that effect size, power, etc. must be reported.” – which power? Post-hoc power? Surely not? Other types are unknown. So what do you mean?

The recommendation on what to report remains vague, and it is unclear why what should be reported.

This sentence was changed, following as well the other reviewer, to ‘null hypothesis significance testing is the statistical method of choice in biological, biomedical and social sciences to investigate if an effect is likely, even though it actually tests whether the observed data are probable, assuming there is no effect’

Changed, refers to Fisher 1925

I changed a little the sentence structure, which should make explicit that this is the condition probability.

This has been changed to ‘[…] to decide whether the evidence is worth additional investigation and/or replication (Fisher, 1971 p13)’

my mistake – the sentence structure is now ‘ not the probability of the null hypothesis p(H0), of being true,’ ; hope this makes more sense (and this way refers back to p(Obs>t|H0)

Fair enough – my point was to stress the fact that p value and effect size or H1 have very little in common, but yes that the part in common has to do with sample size. I left the conditioning on H0 but also point out the dependency on sample size.

The whole paragraph was changed to reflect a more philosophical take on scientific induction/reasoning. I hope this is clearer.

Changed to refer to equivalence testing

I rewrote this, as to show frequentist analysis can be used  - I’m trying to sell Bayes more than any other approach.

I’m arguing we should report it all, that’s why there is no exhausting list – I can if needed.

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.3.2 hypothesis testing (p-value approach).

The P -value approach involves determining "likely" or "unlikely" by determining the probability — assuming the null hypothesis was true — of observing a more extreme test statistic in the direction of the alternative hypothesis than the one observed. If the P -value is small, say less than (or equal to) \(\alpha\), then it is "unlikely." And, if the P -value is large, say more than \(\alpha\), then it is "likely."

If the P -value is less than (or equal to) \(\alpha\), then the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. And, if the P -value is greater than \(\alpha\), then the null hypothesis is not rejected.

Specifically, the four steps involved in using the P -value approach to conducting any hypothesis test are:

• Specify the null and alternative hypotheses.
• Using the sample data and assuming the null hypothesis is true, calculate the value of the test statistic. Again, to conduct the hypothesis test for the population mean μ , we use the t -statistic \(t^*=\frac{\bar{x}-\mu}{s/\sqrt{n}}\) which follows a t -distribution with n - 1 degrees of freedom.
• Using the known distribution of the test statistic, calculate the P -value : "If the null hypothesis is true, what is the probability that we'd observe a more extreme test statistic in the direction of the alternative hypothesis than we did?" (Note how this question is equivalent to the question answered in criminal trials: "If the defendant is innocent, what is the chance that we'd observe such extreme criminal evidence?")
• Set the significance level, \(\alpha\), the probability of making a Type I error to be small — 0.01, 0.05, or 0.10. Compare the P -value to \(\alpha\). If the P -value is less than (or equal to) \(\alpha\), reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. If the P -value is greater than \(\alpha\), do not reject the null hypothesis.

Example S.3.2.1

Mean gpa section  .

In our example concerning the mean grade point average, suppose that our random sample of n = 15 students majoring in mathematics yields a test statistic t * equaling 2.5. Since n = 15, our test statistic t * has n - 1 = 14 degrees of freedom. Also, suppose we set our significance level α at 0.05 so that we have only a 5% chance of making a Type I error.

Right Tailed

The P -value for conducting the right-tailed test H 0 : μ = 3 versus H A : μ > 3 is the probability that we would observe a test statistic greater than t * = 2.5 if the population mean \(\mu\) really were 3. Recall that probability equals the area under the probability curve. The P -value is therefore the area under a t n - 1 = t 14 curve and to the right of the test statistic t * = 2.5. It can be shown using statistical software that the P -value is 0.0127. The graph depicts this visually.

The P -value, 0.0127, tells us it is "unlikely" that we would observe such an extreme test statistic t * in the direction of H A if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, our initial assumption that the null hypothesis is true must be incorrect. That is, since the P -value, 0.0127, is less than \(\alpha\) = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of the alternative hypothesis H A : μ > 3.

Note that we would not reject H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of H A : μ > 3 if we lowered our willingness to make a Type I error to \(\alpha\) = 0.01 instead, as the P -value, 0.0127, is then greater than \(\alpha\) = 0.01.

Left Tailed

In our example concerning the mean grade point average, suppose that our random sample of n = 15 students majoring in mathematics yields a test statistic t * instead of equaling -2.5. The P -value for conducting the left-tailed test H 0 : μ = 3 versus H A : μ < 3 is the probability that we would observe a test statistic less than t * = -2.5 if the population mean μ really were 3. The P -value is therefore the area under a t n - 1 = t 14 curve and to the left of the test statistic t* = -2.5. It can be shown using statistical software that the P -value is 0.0127. The graph depicts this visually.

The P -value, 0.0127, tells us it is "unlikely" that we would observe such an extreme test statistic t * in the direction of H A if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, our initial assumption that the null hypothesis is true must be incorrect. That is, since the P -value, 0.0127, is less than α = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of the alternative hypothesis H A : μ < 3.

Note that we would not reject H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of H A : μ < 3 if we lowered our willingness to make a Type I error to α = 0.01 instead, as the P -value, 0.0127, is then greater than \(\alpha\) = 0.01.

In our example concerning the mean grade point average, suppose again that our random sample of n = 15 students majoring in mathematics yields a test statistic t * instead of equaling -2.5. The P -value for conducting the two-tailed test H 0 : μ = 3 versus H A : μ ≠ 3 is the probability that we would observe a test statistic less than -2.5 or greater than 2.5 if the population mean μ really was 3. That is, the two-tailed test requires taking into account the possibility that the test statistic could fall into either tail (hence the name "two-tailed" test). The P -value is, therefore, the area under a t n - 1 = t 14 curve to the left of -2.5 and to the right of 2.5. It can be shown using statistical software that the P -value is 0.0127 + 0.0127, or 0.0254. The graph depicts this visually.

Note that the P -value for a two-tailed test is always two times the P -value for either of the one-tailed tests. The P -value, 0.0254, tells us it is "unlikely" that we would observe such an extreme test statistic t * in the direction of H A if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, our initial assumption that the null hypothesis is true must be incorrect. That is, since the P -value, 0.0254, is less than α = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of the alternative hypothesis H A : μ ≠ 3.

Note that we would not reject H 0 : μ = 3 in favor of H A : μ ≠ 3 if we lowered our willingness to make a Type I error to α = 0.01 instead, as the P -value, 0.0254, is then greater than \(\alpha\) = 0.01.

Now that we have reviewed the critical value and P -value approach procedures for each of the three possible hypotheses, let's look at three new examples — one of a right-tailed test, one of a left-tailed test, and one of a two-tailed test.

The good news is that, whenever possible, we will take advantage of the test statistics and P -values reported in statistical software, such as Minitab, to conduct our hypothesis tests in this course.

Using a confidence interval to decide whether to reject the null hypothesis

Suppose that you do a hypothesis test. Remember that the decision to reject the null hypothesis (H 0 ) or fail to reject it can be based on the p-value and your chosen significance level (also called α). If the p-value is less than or equal to α, you reject H 0 ; if it is greater than α, you fail to reject H 0 .

• If the reference value specified in H 0 lies outside the interval (that is, is less than the lower bound or greater than the upper bound), you can reject H 0 .
• If the reference value specified in H 0 lies within the interval (that is, is not less than the lower bound or greater than the upper bound), you fail to reject H 0 .
• Minitab.com
• License Portal
• Cookie Settings

You are now leaving support.minitab.com.

Click Continue to proceed to:

• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Statistics By Jim

Making statistics intuitive

Failing to Reject the Null Hypothesis

By Jim Frost 69 Comments

Failing to reject the null hypothesis is an odd way to state that the results of your hypothesis test are not statistically significant. Why the peculiar phrasing? “Fail to reject” sounds like one of those double negatives that writing classes taught you to avoid. What does it mean exactly? There’s an excellent reason for the odd wording!

In this post, learn what it means when you fail to reject the null hypothesis and why that’s the correct wording. While accepting the null hypothesis sounds more straightforward, it is not statistically correct!

Before proceeding, let’s recap some necessary information. In all statistical hypothesis tests, you have the following two hypotheses:

• The null hypothesis states that there is no effect or relationship between the variables.
• The alternative hypothesis states the effect or relationship exists.

We assume that the null hypothesis is correct until we have enough evidence to suggest otherwise.

After you perform a hypothesis test, there are only two possible outcomes.

• When your p-value is greater than your significance level, you fail to reject the null hypothesis. Your results are not significant. You’ll learn more about interpreting this outcome later in this post.

Related posts : Hypothesis Testing Overview and The Null Hypothesis

Why Don’t Statisticians Accept the Null Hypothesis?

To understand why we don’t accept the null, consider the fact that you can’t prove a negative. A lack of evidence only means that you haven’t proven that something exists. It does not prove that something doesn’t exist. It might exist, but your study missed it. That’s a huge difference and it is the reason for the convoluted wording. Let’s look at several analogies.

Species Presumed to be Extinct

Lack of proof doesn’t represent proof that something doesn’t exist!

Criminal Trials

Perhaps the prosecutor conducted a shoddy investigation and missed clues? Or, the defendant successfully covered his tracks? Consequently, the verdict in these cases is “not guilty.” That judgment doesn’t say the defendant is proven innocent, just that there wasn’t enough evidence to move the jury from the default assumption of innocence.

Hypothesis Tests

The hypothesis test assesses the evidence in your sample. If your test fails to detect an effect, it’s not proof that the effect doesn’t exist. It just means your sample contained an insufficient amount of evidence to conclude that it exists. Like the species that were presumed extinct, or the prosecutor who missed clues, the effect might exist in the overall population but not in your particular sample. Consequently, the test results fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is analogous to a “not guilty” verdict in a trial. There just wasn’t enough evidence to move the hypothesis test from the default position that the null is true.

The critical point across these analogies is that a lack of evidence does not prove something does not exist—just that you didn’t find it in your specific investigation. Hence, you never accept the null hypothesis.

Related post : The Significance Level as an Evidentiary Standard

What Does Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis Mean?

Accepting the null hypothesis would indicate that you’ve proven an effect doesn’t exist. As you’ve seen, that’s not the case at all. You can’t prove a negative! Instead, the strength of your evidence falls short of being able to reject the null. Consequently, we fail to reject it.

Failing to reject the null indicates that our sample did not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the effect exists. However, at the same time, that lack of evidence doesn’t prove that the effect does not exist. Capturing all that information leads to the convoluted wording!

What are the possible implications of failing to reject the null hypothesis? Let’s work through them.

First, it is possible that the effect truly doesn’t exist in the population, which is why your hypothesis test didn’t detect it in the sample. Makes sense, right? While that is one possibility, it doesn’t end there.

Another possibility is that the effect exists in the population, but the test didn’t detect it for a variety of reasons. These reasons include the following:

• The sample size was too small to detect the effect.
• The variability in the data was too high. The effect exists, but the noise in your data swamped the signal (effect).
• By chance, you collected a fluky sample. When dealing with random samples, chance always plays a role in the results. The luck of the draw might have caused your sample not to reflect an effect that exists in the population.

Notice how studies that collect a small amount of data or low-quality data are likely to miss an effect that exists? These studies had inadequate statistical power to detect the effect. We certainly don’t want to take results from low-quality studies as proof that something doesn’t exist!

However, failing to detect an effect does not necessarily mean a study is low-quality. Random chance in the sampling process can work against even the best research projects!

If you’re learning about hypothesis testing and like the approach I use in my blog, check out my eBook!

Share this:

Reader Interactions

May 8, 2024 at 9:08 am

Thank you very much for explaining the topic. It brings clarity and makes statistics very simple and interesting. Its helping me in the field of Medical Research.

February 26, 2024 at 7:54 pm

Hi Jim, My question is that can I reverse Null hyposthesis and start with Null: µ1 ≠ µ2 ? Then, if I can reject Null, I will end up with µ1=µ2 for mean comparison and this what I am looking for. But isn’t this cheating?

February 26, 2024 at 11:41 pm

That can be done but it requires you to revamp the entire test. Keep in mind that the reason you normally start out with the null equating to no relationship is because the researchers typically want to prove that a relationship or effect exists. This format forces the researchers to collect a substantial amount of high quality data to have a chance at demonstrating that an effect exists. If they collect a small sample and/or poor quality (e.g., noisy or imprecise), then the results default back to the null stating that no effect exists. So, they have to collect good data and work hard to get findings that suggest the effect exists.

There are tests that flip it around as you suggest where the null states that a relationship does exist. For example, researchers perform an equivalency test when they want to show that there is no difference. That the groups are equal. The test is designed such that it requires a good sample size and high quality data to have a chance at proving equivalency. If they have a small sample size and/or poor quality data, the results default back to the groups being unequal, which is not what they want to show.

So, choose the null hypothesis and corresponding analysis based on what you hope to find. Choose the null hypothesis that forces you to work hard to reject it and get the results that you want. It forces you to collect better evidence to make your case and the results default back to what you don’t want if you do a poor job.

I hope that makes sense!

October 13, 2023 at 5:10 am

Really appreciate how you have been able to explain something difficult in very simple terms. Also covering why you can’t accept a null hypothesis – something which I think is frequently missed. Thank you, Jim.

February 22, 2022 at 11:18 am

Hi Jim, I really appreciate your blog, making difficult things sound simple is a great gift.

I have a doubt about the p-value. You said there are two options when it comes to hypothesis tests results . Reject or failing to reject the null, depending on the p-value and your significant level.

But… a P-value of 0,001 means a stronger evidence than a P-value of 0,01? ( both with a significant level of 5%. Or It doesn`t matter, and just every p-Value under your significant level means the same burden of evidence against the null?

I hope I made my point clear. Thanks a lot for your time.

February 23, 2022 at 9:06 pm

There are different schools of thought about this question. The traditional approach is clear cut. Your results are statistically significance when your p-value is less than or equal to your significance level. When the p-value is greater than the significance level, your results are not significant.

However, as you point out, lower p-values indicate stronger evidence against the null hypothesis. I write about this aspect of p-values in several articles, interpreting p-values (near the end) and p-values and reproducibility .

Personally, I consider both aspects. P-values near 0.05 provide weak evidence. Consequently, I’d be willing to say that p-values less than or equal to 0.05 are statistically significant, but when they’re near 0.05, I’d consider it as a preliminary result that requires more research. However, if the p-value is less 0.01, or even better 0.001, then that’s much stronger evidence and I’ll give those results more weight in my evaluation.

If you read those two articles, I think you’ll see what I mean.

January 1, 2022 at 6:00 pm

HI, I have a quick question that you may be able to help me with. I am using SPSS and carrying out a Mann W U Test it says to retain the null hypothesis. The hypothesis is that males are faster than women at completing a task. So is that saying that they are or are not

January 1, 2022 at 8:17 pm

In that case, your sample data provides insufficient evidence to conclude that males are faster. The results do not prove that males and females are the same speed. You just don’t have enough evidence to say males are faster. In this post, I cover the reasons why you can’t prove the null is true.

November 23, 2021 at 5:36 pm

What if I have to prove in my hypothesis that there shouldn’t be any affect of treatment on patients? Can I say that if my null hypothesis is accepted i have got my results (no effect)? I am confused what to do in this situation. As for null hypothesis we always have to write it with some type of equality. What if I want my result to be what i have stated in null hypothesis i.e. no effect? How to write statements in this case? I am using non parametric test, Mann whitney u test

November 27, 2021 at 4:56 pm

You need to perform an equivalence test, which is a special type of procedure when you want to prove that the results are equal. The problem with a regular hypothesis test is that when you fail to reject the null, you’re not proving that they the outcomes are equal. You can fail to reject the null thanks to a small sample size, noisy data, or a small effect size even when the outcomes are truly different at the population level. An equivalence test sets things up so you need strong evidence to really show that two outcomes are equal.

Unfortunately, I don’t have any content for equivalence testing at this point, but you can read an article about it at Wikipedia: Equivalence Test .

August 13, 2021 at 9:41 pm

Great explanation and great analogies! Thanks.

August 11, 2021 at 2:02 am

I got problems with analysis. I did wound healing experiments with drugs treatment (total 9 groups). When I do the 2-way ANOVA in excel, I got the significant results in sample (Drug Treatment) and columns (Day, Timeline) . But I did not get the significantly results in interactions. Can I still reject the null hypothesis and continue the post-hoc test?

Thank you very much.

June 13, 2021 at 4:51 am

Hi Jim, There are so many books covering maths/programming related to statistics/DS, but may be hardly any book to develop an intuitive understanding. Thanks to you for filling up that gap. After statistics, hypothesis-testing, regression, will it be possible for you to write such books on more topics in DS such as trees, deep-learning etc.

I recently started with reading your book on hypothesis testing (just finished the first chapter). I have a question w.r.t the fuel cost example (from first chapter), where a random sample of 25 families (with sample mean 330.6) is taken. To do the hypothesis testing here, we are taking a sampling distribution with a mean of 260. Then based on the p-value and significance level, we find whether to reject or accept the null hypothesis. The entire decision (to accept or reject the null hypothesis) is based on the sampling distribution about which i have the following questions : a) we are assuming that the sampling distribution is normally distributed. what if it has some other distribution, how can we find that ? b) We have assumed that the sampling distribution is normally distributed and then further assumed that its mean is 260 (as required for the hypothesis testing). But we need the standard deviation as well to define the normal distribution, can you please let me know how do we find the standard deviation for the sampling distribution ? Thanks.

April 24, 2021 at 2:25 pm

Maybe its the idea of “Innocent until proven guilty”? Your Null assume the person is not guilty, and your alternative assumes the person is guilty, only when you have enough evidence (finding statistical significance P0.05 you have failed to reject null hypothesis, null stands,implying the person is not guilty. Or, the person remain innocent.. Correct me if you think it’s wrong but this is the way I interpreted.

April 25, 2021 at 5:10 pm

I used the courtroom/trial analogy within this post. Read that for more details. I’d agree with your general take on the issue except when you have enough evidence you actually reject the null, which in the trial means the defendant is found guilty.

April 17, 2021 at 6:10 am

Can regression analysis be done using 5 companies variables for predicting working capital management and profitability positive/negative relationship?

Also, does null hypothesis rejecting means whatsoever is stated in null hypothesis that is false proved through regression analysis?

I have very less knowledge about regression analysis. Please help me, Sir. As I have my project report due on next week. Thanks in advance!

April 18, 2021 at 10:48 pm

Hi Ahmed, yes, regression analysis can be used for the scenario you describe as long as you have the required data.

For more about the null hypothesis in relation to regression analysis, read my post about regression coefficients and their p-values . I describe the null hypothesis in it.

January 26, 2021 at 7:32 pm

With regards to the legal example above. While your explanation makes sense when simplified to this statistical level, from a legal perspective it is not correct. The presumption of innocence means one does not need to be proven innocent. They are innocent. The onus of proof lies with proving they are guilty. So if you can’t prove someones guilt then in fact you must accept the null hypothesis that they are innocent. It’s not a statistical test so a little bit misleading using it an example, although I see why you would.

If it were a statistical test, then we would probably be rather paranoid that everyone is a murderer but they just haven’t been proven to be one yet.

Great article though, a nice simple and thoughtout explanation.

January 26, 2021 at 9:11 pm

It seems like you misread my post. The hypothesis testing/legal analogy is very strong both in making the case and in the result.

In hypothesis testing, the data have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the alternative hypothesis is true. In a court case, the prosecutor has to present sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

In terms of the test/case results. When the evidence (data) is insufficient, you fail to reject the null hypothesis but you do not conclude that the data proves the null is true. In a legal case that has insufficient evidence, the jury finds the defendant to be “not guilty” but they do not say that s/he is proven innocent. To your point specifically, it is not accurate to say that “not guilty” is the same as “proven innocent.”

It’s a very strong parallel.

January 9, 2021 at 11:45 am

Just a question, in my research on hypotheses for an assignment, I am finding it difficult to find an exact definition for a hypothesis itself. I know the defintion, but I’m looking for a citable explanation, any ideas?

January 10, 2021 at 1:37 am

To be clear, do you need to come up with a statistical hypothesis? That’s one where you’ll use a particular statistical hypothesis test. If so, I’ll need to know more about what you’re studying, your variables, and the type of hypothesis test you plan to use.

There are also scientific hypotheses that you’ll state in your proposals, study papers, etc. Those are different from statistical hypotheses (although related). However, those are very study area specific and I don’t cover those types on this blog because this is a statistical blog. But, if it’s a statistical hypothesis for a hypothesis test, then let me know the information I mention above and I can help you out!

November 7, 2020 at 8:33 am

Hi, good read, I’m kind of a novice here, so I’m trying to write a research paper, and I’m trying to make a hypothesis. however looking at the literature, there are contradicting results.

researcher A found that there is relationship between X and Y

however, researcher B found that there is no relationship between X and Y

therefore, what is the null hypothesis between X and y? do we choose what we assumed to be correct for our study? or is is somehow related to the alternative hypothesis? I’m confused.

thank you very much for the help.

November 8, 2020 at 12:07 am

Hypotheses for a statistical test are different than a researcher’s hypothesis. When you’re constructing the statistical hypothesis, you don’t need to consider what other researchers have found. Instead, you construct them so that the test only produces statistically significant results (rejecting the null) when your data provides strong evidence. I talk about that process in this post.

Typically, researchers are hoping to establish that an effect or relationship exists. Consequently, the null and alternative hypotheses are typically the following:

Null: The effect or relationship doesn’t not exist. Alternative: The effect or relationship does exist.

However, if you’re hoping to prove that there is no effect or no relationship, you then need to flip those hypotheses and use a special test, such as an equivalences test.

So, there’s no need to consider what researchers have found but instead what you’re looking for. In most cases, you are looking for an effect/relationship, so you’d go with the hypotheses as I show them above.

I hope that helps!

October 22, 2020 at 6:13 pm

Great, deep detailed answer. Appreciated!

September 16, 2020 at 12:03 pm

Thank you for explaining it too clearly. I have the following situation with a Box Bohnken design of three levels and three factors for multiple responses. F-value for second order model is not significant (failing to reject null hypothesis, p-value > 0.05) but, lack of fit of the model is not significant. What can you suggest me about statistical analysis?

September 17, 2020 at 2:42 am

Are your first order effects significant?

You want the lack of fit to be nonsignificant. If it’s significant, that means the model doesn’t fit the data well. So, you’re good there! 🙂

September 14, 2020 at 5:18 pm

thank you for all the explicit explanation on the subject.

However, i still got a question about “accepting the null hypothesis”. from textbook, the p-value is the probability that a statistic would take a value that is as extreme as or more extreme than that actually observed.

so, that’s why when p<0.01 we reject the null hypothesis, because it's too rare (p0.05, i can understand that for most cases we cannot accept the null, for example, if p=0.5, it means that the probability to get a statistic from the distribution is 0.5, which is totally random.

But how about when the p is very close to 1, like p=0.95, or p=0.99999999, can’t we say that the probability that the statistic is not from this distribution is less than 0.05, | or in another way, the probability that the statistic is from the distribution is almost 1. can’t we accept the null in such circumstance?

September 11, 2020 at 12:14 pm

Wow! This is beautifully explained. “Lack of proof doesn’t represent proof that something doesn’t exist!”. This kinda, hit me with such force. Can I then, use the same analogy for many other things in life? LOL! 🙂

H0 = God does not exist; H1 = God does exist; WE fail to reject H0 as there is no evidence.

Thank you sir, this has answered many of my questions, statistically speaking! No pun intended with the above.

September 11, 2020 at 4:58 pm

Hi, LOL, I’m glad it had such meaning for you! I’ll leave the determination about the existence of god up to each person, but in general, yes, I think statistical thinking can be helpful when applied to real life. It is important to realize that lack of proof truly is not proof that something doesn’t exist. But, I also consider other statistical concepts, such as confounders and sampling methodology, to be useful keeping in mind when I’m considering everyday life stuff–even when I’m not statistically analyzing it. Those concepts are generally helpful when trying to figure out what is going on in your life! Are there other alternative explanations? Is what you’re perceiving likely to be biased by something that’s affecting the “data” you can observe? Am I drawing a conclusion based on a large or small sample? How strong is the evidence?

A lot of those concepts are great considerations even when you’re just informally assessing and draw conclusions about things happening in your daily life.

August 13, 2020 at 12:04 am

Dear Jim, thanks for clarifying. absolutely, now it makes sense. the topic is murky but it is good to have your guidance, and be clear. I have not come across an instructor as clear in explaining as you do. Appreciate your direction. Thanks a lot, Geetanjali

August 15, 2020 at 3:48 pm

Hi Geetanjali,

I’m glad my website is helpful! That makes my day hearing that. Thanks so much for writing!

August 12, 2020 at 9:37 am

Hi Jim. I am doing data analyis for my masters thesis and my hypothesis testings were insignificant. And I am ok with that. But there is something bothering me. It is the low reliabilities of the 4-Items sub-scales (.55, .68, .75), though the overall alpha is good (.85). I just wonder if it is affecting my hypothesis testings.

August 11, 2020 at 9:23 pm

Thank you sir for replying, yes sir we it’s a RCT study.. where we did within and between the groups analysis and found p>0.05 in between the groups using Mann Whitney U test. So in such cases if the results comes like this we need to Mention that we failed reject the null hypothesis? Is that correct? Whether it tells that the study is inefficient as we couldn’t accept the alternative hypothesis. Thanks is advance.

August 11, 2020 at 9:43 pm

Hi Saumya, ah, this becomes clearer. When ask statistical questions, please be sure to include all relevant information because the details are extremely important. I didn’t know it was an RCT with a treatment and control group. Yes, given that your p-value is greater than your significance level, you fail to reject the null hypothesis. The results are not significant. The experiment provides insufficient evidence to conclude that the outcome in the treatment group is different than the control group.

By the way, you never accept the alternative hypothesis (or the null). The two options are to either reject the null or fail to reject the null. In your case, you fail to reject the null hypothesis.

I hope this helps!

August 11, 2020 at 9:41 am

Sir, p value is0.05, by which we interpret that both the groups are equally effective. In this case I had to reject the alternative hypothesis/ failed to reject null hypothessis.

August 11, 2020 at 12:37 am

sir, within the group analysis the p value for both the groups is significant (p0.05, by which we interpret that though both the treatments are effective, there in no difference between the efficacy of one over the other.. in other words.. no intervention is superior and both are equally effective.

August 11, 2020 at 2:45 pm

Thanks for the additional details. If I understand correctly, there were separate analyses before that determined each treatment had a statistically significance effect. However, when you compare the two treatments, there difference between them is not statistically significant.

If that’s the case, the interpretation is fairly straightforward. You have evidence that suggests that both treatments are effective. However, you don’t have evidence to conclude that one is better than the other.

August 10, 2020 at 9:26 am

Hi thank you for a wonderful explanation. I have a doubt: My Null hypothesis says: no significant difference between the effect fo A and B treatment Alternative hypothesis: there will be significant difference between the effect of A and B treatment. and my results show that i fail to reject null hypothesis.. Both the treatments were effective, but not significant difference.. how do I interpret this?

August 10, 2020 at 1:32 pm

First, I need to ask you a question. If your p-value is not significant, and so you fail to reject the null, why do you say that the treatment is effective? I can answer you question better after knowing the reason you say that. Thanks!

August 9, 2020 at 9:40 am

Dear Jim, thanks for making stats much more understandable and answering all question so painstakingly. I understand the following on p value and null. If our sample yields a p value of .01, it means that that there is a 1% probability that our kind of sample exists in the population. that is a rare event. So why shouldn’t we accept the HO as the probability of our event was v rare. Pls can you correct me. Thanks, G

August 10, 2020 at 1:53 pm

That’s a great question! They key thing to remember is that p-values are a conditional probability. P-value calculations assume that the null hypothesis is true. So, a p-value of 0.01 indicates that there is a 1% probability of observing your sample results, or more extreme, *IF* the null hypothesis is true.

The kicker is that we don’t whether the null is true or not. But, using this process does limit the likelihood of a false positive to your significance level (alpha). But, we don’t know whether the null is true and you had an unusual sample or whether the null is false. Usually, with a p-value of 0.01, we’d reject the null and conclude it is false.

I hope that answered your question. This topic can be murky and I wasn’t quite clear which part you needed clarification.

August 4, 2020 at 11:16 pm

Thank you for the wonderful explanation. However, I was just curious to know that what if in a particular test, we get a p-value less than the level of significance, leading to evidence against null hypothesis. Is there any possibility that our interpretation of population effect might be wrong due to randomness of samples? Also, how do we conclude whether the evidence is enough for our alternate hypothesis?

August 4, 2020 at 11:55 pm

Hi Abhilash,

Yes, unfortunately, when you’re working with samples, there’s always the possibility that random chance will cause your sample to not represent the population. For information about these errors, read my post about the types of errors in hypothesis testing .

In hypothesis testing, you determine whether your evidence is strong enough to reject the null. You don’t accept the alternative hypothesis. I cover that in my post about interpreting p-values .

August 1, 2020 at 3:50 pm

Hi, I am trying to interpret this phenomenon after my research. The null hypothesis states that “The use of combined drugs A and B does not lower blood pressure when compared to if drug A or B is used singularly”

The alternate hypothesis states: The use of combined drugs A and B lower blood pressure compared to if drug A or B is used singularly.

At the end of the study, majority of the people did not actually combine drugs A and B, rather indicated they either used drug A or drug B but not a combination. I am finding it very difficult to explain this outcome more so that it is a descriptive research. Please how do I go about this? Thanks a lot

June 22, 2020 at 10:01 am

What confuses me is how we set/determine the null hypothesis? For example stating that two sets of data are either no different or have no relationship will give completely different outcomes, so which is correct? Is the null that they are different or the same?

June 22, 2020 at 2:16 pm

Typically, the null states there is no effect/no relationship. That’s true for 99% of hypothesis tests. However, there are some equivalence tests where you are trying to prove that the groups are equal. In that case, the null hypothesis states that groups are not equal.

The null hypothesis is typically what you *don’t* want to find. You have to work hard, design a good experiment, collect good data, and end up with sufficient evidence to favor the alternative hypothesis. Usually in an experiment you want to find an effect. So, usually the null states there is no effect and you have get good evidence to reject that notion.

However, there are a few tests where you actually want to prove something is equal, so you need the null to state that they’re not equal in those cases and then do all the hard work and gather good data to suggest that they are equal. Basically, set up the hypothesis so it takes a good experiment and solid evidence to be able to reject the null and favor the hypothesis that you’re hoping is true.

June 5, 2020 at 11:54 am

Thank you for the explanation. I have one question that. If Null hypothesis is failed to reject than is possible to interpret the analysis further?

June 5, 2020 at 7:36 pm

Hi Mottakin,

Typically, if your result is that you fail to reject the null hypothesis there’s not much further interpretation. You don’t want to be in a situation where you’re endlessly trying new things on a quest for obtaining significant results. That’s data mining.

May 25, 2020 at 7:55 am

I hope all is well. I am enjoying your blog. I am not a statistician, however, I use statistical formulae to provide insight on the direction in which data is going. I have used both the regression analysis and a T-Test. I know that both use a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. Could you please clarity the difference between a regression analysis and a T-Test? Are there conditions where one is a better option than the other?

May 26, 2020 at 9:18 pm

t-Tests compare the means of one or two groups. Regression analysis typically describes the relationships between a set of independent variables and the dependent variables. Interestingly, you can actually use regression analysis to perform a t-test. However, that would be overkill. If you just want to compare the means of one or two groups, use a t-test. Read my post about performing t-tests in Excel to see what they can do. If you have a more complex model than just comparing one or two means, regression might be the way to go. Read my post about when to use regression analysis .

May 12, 2020 at 5:45 pm

This article is really enlightening but there is still some darkness looming around. I see that low p-values mean strong evidence against null hypothesis and finding such a sample is highly unlikely when null hypothesis is true. So , is it OK to say that when p-value is 0.01 , it was very unlikely to have found such a sample but we still found it and hence finding such a sample has not occurred just by chance which leads towards rejection of null hypothesis.

May 12, 2020 at 11:16 pm

That’s mostly correct. I wouldn’t say, “has not occurred by chance.” So, when you get a very low p-value it does mean that you are unlikely to obtain that sample if the null is true. However, once you obtain that result, you don’t know for sure which of the two occurred:

• The effect exists in the population.
• Random chance gave you an unusual sample (i.e., Type I error).

You really don’t know for sure. However, by the decision making results you set about the strength of evidence required to reject the null, you conclude that the effect exists. Just always be aware that it could be a false positive.

That’s all a long way of saying that your sample was unlikely to occur by chance if the null is true.

April 29, 2020 at 11:59 am

Why do we consult the statistical tables to find out the critical values of our test statistics?

April 30, 2020 at 5:05 pm

Statistical tables started back in the “olden days” when computers didn’t exist. You’d calculate the test statistic value for your sample. Then, you’d look in the appropriate table and using the degrees of freedom for your design and find the critical values for the test statistic. If the value of your test statistics exceeded the critical value, your results were statistically significant.

With powerful and readily available computers, researchers could analyze their data and calculate the p-values and compare them directly to the significance level.

I hope that answers your question!

April 15, 2020 at 10:12 am

If we are not able to reject the null hypothesis. What could be the solution?

April 16, 2020 at 11:13 pm

Hi Shazzad,

The first thing to recognize is that failing to reject the null hypothesis might not be an error. If the null hypothesis is false, then the correct outcome is failing to reject the null.

However, if the null hypothesis is false and you fail to reject, it is a type II error, or a false negative. Read my post about types of errors in hypothesis tests for more information.

This type of error can occur for a variety of reasons, including the following:

• Fluky sample. When working with random samples, random error can cause anomalous results purely by chance.
• Sample is too small. Perhaps the sample was too small, which means the test didn’t have enough statistical power to detect the difference.
• Problematic data or sampling methodology. There could be a problem with how you collected the data or your sampling methodology.

There are various other possibilities, but those are several common problems.

April 14, 2020 at 12:19 pm

Thank you so much for this article! I am taking my first Statistics class in college and I have one question about this.

I understand that the default position is that the null is correct, and you explained that (just like a court case), the sample evidence must EXCEED the “evidentiary standard” (which is the significance level) to conclude that an effect/relationship exists. And, if an effect/relationship exists, that means that it’s the alternative hypothesis that “wins” (not sure if that’s the correct way of wording it, but I’m trying to make this as simple as possible in my head!).

But what I don’t understand is that if the P-value is GREATER than the significance value, we fail to reject the null….because shouldn’t a higher P-value, mean that our sample evidence EXCEEDS the evidentiary standard (aka the significance level), and therefore an effect/relationship exists? In my mind it would make more sense to reject the null, because our P-value is higher and therefore we have enough evidence to reject the null.

I hope I worded this in a way that makes sense. Thank you in advance!

April 14, 2020 at 10:42 pm

That’s a great question. The key thing to remember is that higher p-values correspond to weaker evidence against the null hypothesis. A high p-value indicates that your sample is likely (high probability = high p-value) if the null hypothesis is true. Conversely, low p-values represent stronger evidence against the null. You were unlikely (low probability = low p-value) to have collect a sample with the measured characteristics if the null is true.

So, there is negative correlation between p-values and strength of evidence against the null hypothesis. Low p-values indicate stronger evidence. Higher p-value represent weaker evidence.

In a nutshell, you reject the null hypothesis with a low p-value because it indicates your sample data are unusual if the null is true. When it’s unusual enough, you reject the null.

March 5, 2020 at 11:10 am

There is something I am confused about. If our significance level is .05 and our resulting p-value is .02 (thus the strength of our evidence is strong enough to reject the null hypothesis), do we state that we reject the null hypothesis with 95% confidence or 98% confidence?

My guess is our confidence level is 95% since or alpha was .05. But if the strength of our evidence is 98%, why wouldn’t we use that as our stated confidence in our results?

March 5, 2020 at 4:19 pm

Hi Michael,

You’d state that you can reject the null at a significance level of 5% or conversely at the 95% confidence level. A key reason is to avoid cherry picking your results. In other words, you don’t want to choose the significance level based on your results.

Consequently, set the significance level/confidence level before performing your analysis. Then, use those preset levels to determine statistical significance. I always recommend including the exact p-value when you report on statistical significance. Exact p-values do provide information about the strength of evidence against the null.

March 5, 2020 at 9:58 am

Thank you for sharing this knowledge , it is very appropriate in explaining some observations in the study of forest biodiversity.

March 4, 2020 at 2:01 am

Thank you so much. This provides for my research

March 3, 2020 at 7:28 pm

If one couples this with what they call estimated monetary value of risk in risk management, one can take better decisions.

March 3, 2020 at 3:12 pm

Thank you for providing this clear insight.

March 3, 2020 at 3:29 am

Nice article Jim. The risk of such failure obviously reduces when a lower significance level is specified.One benefits most by reading this article in conjunction with your other article “Understanding Significance Levels in Statistics”.

March 3, 2020 at 2:43 am

That’s fine. My question is why doesn’t the numerical value of type 1 error coincide with the significance level in the backdrop that the type 1 error and the significance level are both the same ? I hope you got my question.

March 3, 2020 at 3:30 am

Hi, they are equal. As I indicated, the significance level equals the type I error rate.

March 3, 2020 at 1:27 am

Kindly elighten me on one confusion. We set out our significance level before setting our hypothesis. When we calculate the type 1 error, which happens to be a significance level, the numerical value doesn’t equals (either undermining value comes out or an exceeding value comescout ) our significance level that was preassigned. Why is this so ?

March 3, 2020 at 2:24 am

Hi Ratnadeep,

You’re correct. The significance level (alpha) is the same as the type I error rate. However, you compare the p-value to the significance level. It’s the p-value that can be greater than or less than the significance level.

The significance level is the evidentiary standard. How strong does the evidence in your sample need to be before you can reject the null? The p-value indicates the strength of the evidence that is present in your sample. By comparing the p-value to the significance level, you’re comparing the actual strength of the sample evidence to the evidentiary standard to determine whether your sample evidence is strong enough to conclude that the effect exists in the population.

I write about this in my post about the understanding significance levels . I think that will help answer your questions!

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

Evidence Matters

Towards equitable, inclusive and sustainable development

How to communicate a null-results impact evaluation

Development programs aim to improve outcomes for poor and vulnerable populations, from better health and increased learning to higher productivity and incomes. Impact evaluations apply research tools to assess whether those intended outcomes were achieved because of the program. Despite the best intentions of implementers to design effective programs, impact evaluations sometimes show that an intervention had no effect (null impacts) or even that the program left participants worse off than they would have been absent the program (negative impacts). While such findings provide valuable learning, they can be disheartening for program staff, donors, and others who invested time, effort, and resources into an initiative that was intended to help. 

For evaluators, communicating null or negative results can present multiple challenges, especially if the findings contradict the prevailing beliefs about a program’s effectiveness. For example, in a multi-year program, data from monitoring systems might show that over time, outcomes are progressing in the desired direction, generating expectations amongst program staff and donors that the program is contributing to those improved outcomes. However, if those improvements are driven by external factors (secular trends), rather than the program, the impact evaluation will show that the control group experienced similar improvements, leading to the conclusion that the program had null effects. 

Here are six tips for evaluators on communicating null results:

• Don’t lose sight of the program’s development objectives and opportunities for improving the intervention model . Many times, in null result scenarios, the impact evaluation will show that the original problem (poverty, malnutrition, low levels of learning, etc) continues to be highly relevant, and may offer insights on promising improvements to the intervention model. This is an opportunity to make evidence-informed changes to the intervention model without losing sight of the original objectives.
• Follow the program’s theory of change and triage with other evidence sources. When communicating null results, walk through the various levels of the program’s theory of change, connecting the dots between inputs, outputs, intermediate outcomes, and final outcomes (or impacts). Diagnostic studies, qualitative evidence, and process evaluations can be powerful complements for making sense of null results. If the process evaluation found that the program was not delivered as planned, or the evaluation showed low levels of program participation, the null results findings will be less surprising when presented in that context. 
• Cross-reference multiple sources of data and tell a dynamic story of what happened over time . Audiences tend to be more receptive of null or negative results if evidence from more than one data source tells the same story. For example, evaluators might be able to show that trends over time are consistent between evaluation survey data and program monitoring data, or that results from survey data are confirmed with external remote-sensing data. If time series data are available, it can be helpful to show how key indicators evolved over time across treatment and control groups, especially if null results reflect secular trends where outcomes are improving over time, but independently of the intervention. 
• Be specific and let the data do the talking . When presenting and interpreting the results of an impact evaluation, present the data objectively in terms of what the study found rather than what the program did (or did not) do, and avoid value judgments. A statement such as “the impact evaluation did not identify a significant effect on outcome X” is preferable to “the program did not have an impact on X” or “the program didn’t work”. 
• Be upfront and transparent about limitations of the impact evaluation . Impact estimates tend to rely on assumptions and their interpretation may require understanding multiple nuances and caveats. For example, studies are usually set up to detect a given effect size, so the null result should be contextualized in the original study design. Some identification strategies produce estimates of “local” effects, that is, effects that apply to a narrow subset of the population. If that is the case, then it is possible to say that the impacts are null for some sub-populations, but the impacts for everyone else are not known. If the study sample was subject to attrition, or there were changes in timelines that affected how long the population was exposed to the intervention, those are important nuances that may determine whether further investment in data collection is needed before reaching conclusive results. 
• Work with implementation partners to gather lessons and recommendations, and get in front of the news cycle. Null results offer an important opportunity for learning and introspection, and program implementers should be given the opportunity to process the implications of the evaluation findings and formulate recommendations and policy implications. Partners can take credit for investing in evidence generation and get in front of null results by publicly communicating them with concrete evidence-informed policy recommendations.

Add new comment

Evidence Matters is 3ie’s blog. It primarily features contributions from staff and board members. Guest blogs are by invitation.

3ie publishes blogs in the form received from the authors. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. Views expressed are their own and do not represent the opinions of 3ie, its board of commissioners or supporters.

Most popular blogs

Too difficult, too disruptive and too slow? Innovative approaches to common challenges in conducting humanitarian impact evaluations

Moving the debate forward on community-driven development

• impact evaluations
• 2020hindsight
• systematic reviews
• evidence-based policy

Recent Blogs

Mutual health insurance and the digitization of healthcare services in developing countries: Experience of the ISPV- Africa project in Togo

Updating the evidence base on humanitarian food security interventions — share your impact evaluations