/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 79 When \(X_{1}, X_{2}, \ldots, X_{... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

When \(X_{1}, X_{2}, \ldots, X_{n}\) are independent Poisson variables, each with parameter \(\mu\), and \(n\) is large, the sample mean \(\bar{X}\) has approximately a normal distribution with \(\mu=E(\bar{X})\) and \(V(\bar{X})=\mu / n\). This implies that $$ Z=\frac{\bar{X}-\mu}{\sqrt{\mu / n}} $$ has approximately a standard normal distribution. For testing \(H_{0}: \mu=\mu_{0}\), we can replace \(\mu\) by \(\mu_{0}\) in the equation for \(Z\) to obtain a test statistic. This statistic is actually preferred to the large- sample statistic with denominator \(S / \sqrt{n}\) (when the \(X_{i}\) 's are Poisson) because it is tailored explicitly to the Poisson assumption. If the number of requests for consulting received by a certain statistician during a 5-day work week has a Poisson distribution and the total number of consulting requests during a 36-week period is 160 , does this suggest that the true average number of weekly requests exceeds 4.0? Test using \(\alpha=.02\).

Short Answer

Expert verified
We do not have enough evidence to conclude that the average exceeds 4.0.

Step by step solution

01

Define the Hypotheses

First, we define the null and alternative hypotheses. Our null hypothesis \(H_0\) is that the average number of weekly requests \(\mu = 4.0\). The alternative hypothesis \(H_a\) is that \(\mu > 4.0\), which implies a one-tailed test since we are testing if the true average exceeds 4.0.
02

Calculate the Sample Mean

We know the total number of requests over 36 weeks is 160. Hence, the sample mean \(\bar{X}\) can be calculated as \(\bar{X} = \frac{160}{36} \approx 4.44\).
03

Calculate the Test Statistic

Substitute \(\bar{X} = 4.44\), \(\mu_0 = 4.0\), and \(n = 36\) into the test statistic formula: \[ Z = \frac{\bar{X} - \mu_0}{\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{n}}} = \frac{4.44 - 4.0}{\sqrt{\frac{4.0}{36}}} \approx \frac{0.44}{0.333} \approx 1.32. \]
04

Determine the Critical Value

For a significance level of \(\alpha = 0.02\), we determine the critical value from the standard normal distribution table. A one-tailed test at \(\alpha = 0.02\) gives a critical value of approximately 2.05.
05

Make a Decision

Since the calculated test statistic \(Z \approx 1.32\) is less than the critical value 2.05, we do not reject the null hypothesis.

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

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Normal Approximation
When dealing with Poisson-distributed variables, like in our textbook exercise, the normal approximation is a handy tool. If you have a data set from a Poisson distribution with a known parameter \( \mu \), and your sample size \( n \) is large enough, you can approximate your data using a normal distribution.
This conversion is possible because the Central Limit Theorem tells us that the sampling distribution of the sample means approximates a normal distribution as the sample size increases. In our exercise, we're looking at consulting requests, which initially follow a Poisson distribution.
  • The mean of this distribution, \(\mu \), stays the same when approximated normally.
  • The variance becomes \( \mu / n \), where \( n \) is our sample size.
Knowing this, we can transform our data into a format we're more comfortable with: the normal distribution. This transformation allows us to employ hypothesis tests using standard normal distribution techniques.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis testing is a method used to decide whether your data strongly supports one assumption over another. In the context of Poisson distributions and normal approximations, you first identify your null hypothesis (\(H_0\)) and your alternative hypothesis (\(H_a\)).
In our original exercise, the null hypothesis is \( H_0: \mu = 4.0 \), meaning we initially assume the average number of weekly requests is equal to 4. For the alternative hypothesis \( H_a: \mu > 4.0 \), we suspect the real number could be higher.
Here's what you generally do during hypothesis testing:
  • Define the hypotheses based on your observation.
  • Calculate the test statistic, which involves using your sample mean and expected value.
  • Compare the test statistic to a critical value to make your decision.
The objective is to see if the evidence (sample data) is strong enough to reject the null hypothesis, typically using a threshold known as the significance level.
Test Statistic
The test statistic is a standardized value that helps you determine where your sample data sits in terms of probability. In the context of our exercise involving a Poisson distribution, once we compute our sample mean, we can proceed to calculate the test statistic \( Z \) using this formula:
\[ Z = \frac{\bar{X} - \mu_0}{\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{n}}} \]
It compares the observed sample mean \( \bar{X} \) to the null hypothesis mean \( \mu_0 \).
The process is straightforward. You subtract the hypothesized mean (in this case, 4.0) from your sample mean (in our example, 4.44), and then divide by the standard deviation, \( \sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{n}} \).
This calculation outputs the test statistic, in our exercise, approximately 1.32.
  • Higher values can indicate strong evidence against the null hypothesis.
  • Lower values might mean the data is consistent with the null hypothesis.
Using the Z-score, you can decide the statistical significance of your findings.
Significance Level
The significance level, denoted as \(\alpha\), sets the threshold for accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. It is essentially the probability of making a Type I error, which is falsely rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true.
In hypothesis testing, especially with a normal distribution approximation like in our example, you compare your computed test statistic with this threshold. For our exercise, we used \(\alpha = 0.02\). This means:
  • There is a 2% risk of concluding that the average number of weekly requests exceeds 4 when it actually does not.
  • This low \(\alpha\) level signifies the investigator's preference for a low probability of error.
You then find the corresponding critical value for this significance level from the standard normal distribution. If your test statistic is greater than the critical value, you reject \(H_0\).
In our instance, since 1.32, the test statistic, is less than the critical value at \(\alpha = 0.02\), which was about 2.05, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to claim the average number of requests exceeds 4.

One App. One Place for Learning.

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

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

A mixture of pulverized fuel ash and Portland cement to be used for grouting should have a compressive strength of more than \(1300 \mathrm{KN} / \mathrm{m}^{2}\). The mixture will not be used unless experimental evidence indicates conclusively that the strength specification has been met. Suppose compressive strength for specimens of this mixture is normally distributed with \(\sigma=60\). Let \(\mu\) denote the true average compressive strength. a. What are the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses? b. Let \(\bar{X}\) denote the sample average compressive strength for \(n=10\) randomly selected specimens. Consider the test procedure with test statistic \(\bar{X}\) and rejection region \(\bar{x} \geq 1331.26\). What is the probability distribution of the test statistic when \(H_{0}\) is true? What is the probability of a type I error for the test procedure? c. What is the probability distribution of the test statistic when \(\mu=1350\) ? Using the test procedure of part (b), what is the probability that the mixture will be judged unsatisfactory when in fact \(\mu=1350\) (a type II error)? d. How would you change the test procedure of part (b) to obtain a test with significance level .05? What impact would this change have on the error probability of part (c)? e. Consider the standardized test statistic \(Z=(\bar{X}-1300) /(\sigma / \sqrt{n})=(\bar{X}-1300) / 13.42\). What are the values of \(Z\) corresponding to the rejection region of part (b)?

For each of the following assertions, state whether it is a legitimate statistical hypothesis and why: a. \(H: \sigma>100\) b. \(H: \tilde{x}=45\) c. \(H: s \leq .20\) d. \(H: \sigma_{1} / \sigma_{2}<1\) e. \(H: \bar{X}-\bar{Y}=5\) f. \(H: \lambda \leq .01\), where \(\lambda\) is the parameter of an exponential distribution used to model component lifetime

The desired percentage of \(\mathrm{SiO}_{2}\) in a certain type of aluminous cement is \(5.5\). To test whether the true average percentage is \(5.5\) for a particular production facility, 16 independently obtained samples are analyzed. Suppose that the percentage of \(\mathrm{SiO}_{2}\) in a sample is normally distributed with \(\sigma=.3\) and that \(\bar{x}=5.25\). a. Does this indicate conclusively that the true average percentage differs from \(5.5\) ? Carry out the analysis using the sequence of steps suggested in the text. b. If the true average percentage is \(\mu=5.6\) and a level \(\alpha=.01\) test based on \(n=16\) is used, what is the probability of detecting this departure from \(H_{0}\) ? c. What value of \(n\) is required to satisfy \(\alpha=.01\) and \(\beta(5.6)=.01 ?\)

The article "Caffeine Knowledge, Attitudes, and Consumption in Adult Women" (J. of Nutrition Educ., 1992: 179-184) reports the following summary data on daily caffeine consumption for a sample of adult women: \(n=47\), \(\bar{x}=215 \mathrm{mg}, s=235 \mathrm{mg}\), and range \(=5-1176\). a. Does it appear plausible that the population distribution of daily caffeine consumption is normal? Is it necessary to assume a normal population distribution to test hypotheses about the value of the population mean consumption? Explain your reasoning. b. Suppose it had previously been believed that mean consumption was at most \(200 \mathrm{mg}\). Does the given data contradict this prior belief? Test the appropriate hypotheses at significance level . 10 and include a \(P\)-value in your analysis.

The accompanying data on cube compressive strength (MPa) of concrete specimens appeared in the article "Experimental Study of Recycled Rubber-Filled HighStrength Concrete" (Magazine of Concrete Res., 2009: \(549-556)\) \(\begin{array}{rrrrr}112.3 & 97.0 & 92.7 & 86.0 & 102.0 \\ 99.2 & 95.8 & 103.5 & 89.0 & 86.7\end{array}\) a. Is it plausible that the compressive strength for this type of concrete is normally distributed? b. Suppose the concrete will be used for a particular application unless there is strong evidence that true average strength is less than \(100 \mathrm{MPa}\). Should the concrete be used? Carry out a test of appropriate hypotheses using the \(P\)-value method.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.