formulating hypothesis statistics

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

6a.2 - steps for hypothesis tests, the logic of hypothesis testing section  .

A hypothesis, in statistics, is a statement about a population parameter, where this statement typically is represented by some specific numerical value. In testing a hypothesis, we use a method where we gather data in an effort to gather evidence about the hypothesis.

How do we decide whether to reject the null hypothesis?

• If the sample data are consistent with the null hypothesis, then we do not reject it.
• If the sample data are inconsistent with the null hypothesis, but consistent with the alternative, then we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the alternative hypothesis is true.

Six Steps for Hypothesis Tests Section  

In hypothesis testing, there are certain steps one must follow. Below these are summarized into six such steps to conducting a test of a hypothesis.

• Set up the hypotheses and check conditions : Each hypothesis test includes two hypotheses about the population. One is the null hypothesis, notated as \(H_0 \), which is a statement of a particular parameter value. This hypothesis is assumed to be true until there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The second hypothesis is called the alternative, or research hypothesis, notated as \(H_a \). The alternative hypothesis is a statement of a range of alternative values in which the parameter may fall. One must also check that any conditions (assumptions) needed to run the test have been satisfied e.g. normality of data, independence, and number of success and failure outcomes.
• Decide on the significance level, \(\alpha \): This value is used as a probability cutoff for making decisions about the null hypothesis. This alpha value represents the probability we are willing to place on our test for making an incorrect decision in regards to rejecting the null hypothesis. The most common \(\alpha \) value is 0.05 or 5%. Other popular choices are 0.01 (1%) and 0.1 (10%).
• Calculate the test statistic: Gather sample data and calculate a test statistic where the sample statistic is compared to the parameter value. The test statistic is calculated under the assumption the null hypothesis is true and incorporates a measure of standard error and assumptions (conditions) related to the sampling distribution.
• Calculate probability value (p-value), or find the rejection region: A p-value is found by using the test statistic to calculate the probability of the sample data producing such a test statistic or one more extreme. The rejection region is found by using alpha to find a critical value; the rejection region is the area that is more extreme than the critical value. We discuss the p-value and rejection region in more detail in the next section.
• Make a decision about the null hypothesis: In this step, we decide to either reject the null hypothesis or decide to fail to reject the null hypothesis. Notice we do not make a decision where we will accept the null hypothesis.
• State an overall conclusion : Once we have found the p-value or rejection region, and made a statistical decision about the null hypothesis (i.e. we will reject the null or fail to reject the null), we then want to summarize our results into an overall conclusion for our test.

We will follow these six steps for the remainder of this Lesson. In the future Lessons, the steps will be followed but may not be explained explicitly.

Step 1 is a very important step to set up correctly. If your hypotheses are incorrect, your conclusion will be incorrect. In this next section, we practice with Step 1 for the one sample situations.

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.36(50); 2021 Dec 27

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Durga prasanna misra.

1 Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Armen Yuri Gasparyan

2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.

Olena Zimba

3 Department of Internal Medicine #2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.

Marlen Yessirkepov

4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

Vikas Agarwal

George d. kitas.

5 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

Graphical Abstract

DEFINING WORKING AND STANDALONE SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

Science is the systematized description of natural truths and facts. Routine observations of existing life phenomena lead to the creative thinking and generation of ideas about mechanisms of such phenomena and related human interventions. Such ideas presented in a structured format can be viewed as hypotheses. After generating a hypothesis, it is necessary to test it to prove its validity. Thus, hypothesis can be defined as a proposed mechanism of a naturally occurring event or a proposed outcome of an intervention. 1 , 2

Hypothesis testing requires choosing the most appropriate methodology and adequately powering statistically the study to be able to “prove” or “disprove” it within predetermined and widely accepted levels of certainty. This entails sample size calculation that often takes into account previously published observations and pilot studies. 2 , 3 In the era of digitization, hypothesis generation and testing may benefit from the availability of numerous platforms for data dissemination, social networking, and expert validation. Related expert evaluations may reveal strengths and limitations of proposed ideas at early stages of post-publication promotion, preventing the implementation of unsupported controversial points. 4

Thus, hypothesis generation is an important initial step in the research workflow, reflecting accumulating evidence and experts' stance. In this article, we overview the genesis and importance of scientific hypotheses and their relevance in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

DO WE NEED HYPOTHESES FOR ALL STUDY DESIGNS?

Broadly, research can be categorized as primary or secondary. In the context of medicine, primary research may include real-life observations of disease presentations and outcomes. Single case descriptions, which often lead to new ideas and hypotheses, serve as important starting points or justifications for case series and cohort studies. The importance of case descriptions is particularly evident in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic when unique, educational case reports have heralded a new era in clinical medicine. 5

Case series serve similar purpose to single case reports, but are based on a slightly larger quantum of information. Observational studies, including online surveys, describe the existing phenomena at a larger scale, often involving various control groups. Observational studies include variable-scale epidemiological investigations at different time points. Interventional studies detail the results of therapeutic interventions.

Secondary research is based on already published literature and does not directly involve human or animal subjects. Review articles are generated by secondary research. These could be systematic reviews which follow methods akin to primary research but with the unit of study being published papers rather than humans or animals. Systematic reviews have a rigid structure with a mandatory search strategy encompassing multiple databases, systematic screening of search results against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, critical appraisal of study quality and an optional component of collating results across studies quantitatively to derive summary estimates (meta-analysis). 6 Narrative reviews, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure. Systematic literature searches to minimise bias in selection of articles are highly recommended but not mandatory. 7 Narrative reviews are influenced by the authors' viewpoint who may preferentially analyse selected sets of articles. 8

In relation to primary research, case studies and case series are generally not driven by a working hypothesis. Rather, they serve as a basis to generate a hypothesis. Observational or interventional studies should have a hypothesis for choosing research design and sample size. The results of observational and interventional studies further lead to the generation of new hypotheses, testing of which forms the basis of future studies. Review articles, on the other hand, may not be hypothesis-driven, but form fertile ground to generate future hypotheses for evaluation. Fig. 1 summarizes which type of studies are hypothesis-driven and which lead on to hypothesis generation.

STANDARDS OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

A review of the published literature did not enable the identification of clearly defined standards for working and scientific hypotheses. It is essential to distinguish influential versus not influential hypotheses, evidence-based hypotheses versus a priori statements and ideas, ethical versus unethical, or potentially harmful ideas. The following points are proposed for consideration while generating working and scientific hypotheses. 1 , 2 Table 1 summarizes these points.

Evidence-based data

A scientific hypothesis should have a sound basis on previously published literature as well as the scientist's observations. Randomly generated (a priori) hypotheses are unlikely to be proven. A thorough literature search should form the basis of a hypothesis based on published evidence. 7

Unless a scientific hypothesis can be tested, it can neither be proven nor be disproven. Therefore, a scientific hypothesis should be amenable to testing with the available technologies and the present understanding of science.

Supported by pilot studies

If a hypothesis is based purely on a novel observation by the scientist in question, it should be grounded on some preliminary studies to support it. For example, if a drug that targets a specific cell population is hypothesized to be useful in a particular disease setting, then there must be some preliminary evidence that the specific cell population plays a role in driving that disease process.

Testable by ethical studies

The hypothesis should be testable by experiments that are ethically acceptable. 9 For example, a hypothesis that parachutes reduce mortality from falls from an airplane cannot be tested using a randomized controlled trial. 10 This is because it is obvious that all those jumping from a flying plane without a parachute would likely die. Similarly, the hypothesis that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer cannot be tested by a clinical trial that makes people take up smoking (since there is considerable evidence for the health hazards associated with smoking). Instead, long-term observational studies comparing outcomes in those who smoke and those who do not, as was performed in the landmark epidemiological case control study by Doll and Hill, 11 are more ethical and practical.

Balance between scientific temper and controversy

Novel findings, including novel hypotheses, particularly those that challenge established norms, are bound to face resistance for their wider acceptance. Such resistance is inevitable until the time such findings are proven with appropriate scientific rigor. However, hypotheses that generate controversy are generally unwelcome. For example, at the time the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS was taking foot, there were numerous deniers that refused to believe that HIV caused AIDS. 12 , 13 Similarly, at a time when climate change is causing catastrophic changes to weather patterns worldwide, denial that climate change is occurring and consequent attempts to block climate change are certainly unwelcome. 14 The denialism and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, including unfortunate examples of vaccine hesitancy, are more recent examples of controversial hypotheses not backed by science. 15 , 16 An example of a controversial hypothesis that was a revolutionary scientific breakthrough was the hypothesis put forth by Warren and Marshall that Helicobacter pylori causes peptic ulcers. Initially, the hypothesis that a microorganism could cause gastritis and gastric ulcers faced immense resistance. When the scientists that proposed the hypothesis themselves ingested H. pylori to induce gastritis in themselves, only then could they convince the wider world about their hypothesis. Such was the impact of the hypothesis was that Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005 for this discovery. 17 , 18

DISTINGUISHING THE MOST INFLUENTIAL HYPOTHESES

Influential hypotheses are those that have stood the test of time. An archetype of an influential hypothesis is that proposed by Edward Jenner in the eighteenth century that cowpox infection protects against smallpox. While this observation had been reported for nearly a century before this time, it had not been suitably tested and publicised until Jenner conducted his experiments on a young boy by demonstrating protection against smallpox after inoculation with cowpox. 19 These experiments were the basis for widespread smallpox immunization strategies worldwide in the 20th century which resulted in the elimination of smallpox as a human disease today. 20

Other influential hypotheses are those which have been read and cited widely. An example of this is the hygiene hypothesis proposing an inverse relationship between infections in early life and allergies or autoimmunity in adulthood. An analysis reported that this hypothesis had been cited more than 3,000 times on Scopus. 1

LESSONS LEARNED FROM HYPOTHESES AMIDST THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The COVID-19 pandemic devastated the world like no other in recent memory. During this period, various hypotheses emerged, understandably so considering the public health emergency situation with innumerable deaths and suffering for humanity. Within weeks of the first reports of COVID-19, aberrant immune system activation was identified as a key driver of organ dysfunction and mortality in this disease. 21 Consequently, numerous drugs that suppress the immune system or abrogate the activation of the immune system were hypothesized to have a role in COVID-19. 22 One of the earliest drugs hypothesized to have a benefit was hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was proposed to interfere with Toll-like receptor activation and consequently ameliorate the aberrant immune system activation leading to pathology in COVID-19. 22 The drug was also hypothesized to have a prophylactic role in preventing infection or disease severity in COVID-19. It was also touted as a wonder drug for the disease by many prominent international figures. However, later studies which were well-designed randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Subsequently, azithromycin 27 , 28 and ivermectin 29 were hypothesized as potential therapies for COVID-19, but were not supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. The role of vitamin D in preventing disease severity was also proposed, but has not been proven definitively until now. 30 , 31 On the other hand, randomized controlled trials identified the evidence supporting dexamethasone 32 and interleukin-6 pathway blockade with tocilizumab as effective therapies for COVID-19 in specific situations such as at the onset of hypoxia. 33 , 34 Clues towards the apparent effectiveness of various drugs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro but their ineffectiveness in vivo have recently been identified. Many of these drugs are weak, lipophilic bases and some others induce phospholipidosis which results in apparent in vitro effectiveness due to non-specific off-target effects that are not replicated inside living systems. 35 , 36

Another hypothesis proposed was the association of the routine policy of vaccination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) with lower deaths due to COVID-19. This hypothesis emerged in the middle of 2020 when COVID-19 was still taking foot in many parts of the world. 37 , 38 Subsequently, many countries which had lower deaths at that time point went on to have higher numbers of mortality, comparable to other areas of the world. Furthermore, the hypothesis that BCG vaccination reduced COVID-19 mortality was a classic example of ecological fallacy. Associations between population level events (ecological studies; in this case, BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality) cannot be directly extrapolated to the individual level. Furthermore, such associations cannot per se be attributed as causal in nature, and can only serve to generate hypotheses that need to be tested at the individual level. 39

IS TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW EFFICIENT FOR EVALUATION OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES?

Traditionally, publication after peer review has been considered the gold standard before any new idea finds acceptability amongst the scientific community. Getting a work (including a working or scientific hypothesis) reviewed by experts in the field before experiments are conducted to prove or disprove it helps to refine the idea further as well as improve the experiments planned to test the hypothesis. 40 A route towards this has been the emergence of journals dedicated to publishing hypotheses such as the Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 41 Another means of publishing hypotheses is through registered research protocols detailing the background, hypothesis, and methodology of a particular study. If such protocols are published after peer review, then the journal commits to publishing the completed study irrespective of whether the study hypothesis is proven or disproven. 42 In the post-pandemic world, online research methods such as online surveys powered via social media channels such as Twitter and Instagram might serve as critical tools to generate as well as to preliminarily test the appropriateness of hypotheses for further evaluation. 43 , 44

Some radical hypotheses might be difficult to publish after traditional peer review. These hypotheses might only be acceptable by the scientific community after they are tested in research studies. Preprints might be a way to disseminate such controversial and ground-breaking hypotheses. 45 However, scientists might prefer to keep their hypotheses confidential for the fear of plagiarism of ideas, avoiding online posting and publishing until they have tested the hypotheses.

SUGGESTIONS ON GENERATING AND PUBLISHING HYPOTHESES

Publication of hypotheses is important, however, a balance is required between scientific temper and controversy. Journal editors and reviewers might keep in mind these specific points, summarized in Table 2 and detailed hereafter, while judging the merit of hypotheses for publication. Keeping in mind the ethical principle of primum non nocere, a hypothesis should be published only if it is testable in a manner that is ethically appropriate. 46 Such hypotheses should be grounded in reality and lend themselves to further testing to either prove or disprove them. It must be considered that subsequent experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis have an equal chance of failing or succeeding, akin to tossing a coin. A pre-conceived belief that a hypothesis is unlikely to be proven correct should not form the basis of rejection of such a hypothesis for publication. In this context, hypotheses generated after a thorough literature search to identify knowledge gaps or based on concrete clinical observations on a considerable number of patients (as opposed to random observations on a few patients) are more likely to be acceptable for publication by peer-reviewed journals. Also, hypotheses should be considered for publication or rejection based on their implications for science at large rather than whether the subsequent experiments to test them end up with results in favour of or against the original hypothesis.

Hypotheses form an important part of the scientific literature. The COVID-19 pandemic has reiterated the importance and relevance of hypotheses for dealing with public health emergencies and highlighted the need for evidence-based and ethical hypotheses. A good hypothesis is testable in a relevant study design, backed by preliminary evidence, and has positive ethical and clinical implications. General medical journals might consider publishing hypotheses as a specific article type to enable more rapid advancement of science.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Data curation: Gasparyan AY, Misra DP, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Agarwal V, Kitas GD.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7.1: Basics of Hypothesis Testing

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 16360

• Kathryn Kozak
• Coconino Community College

To understand the process of a hypothesis tests, you need to first have an understanding of what a hypothesis is, which is an educated guess about a parameter. Once you have the hypothesis, you collect data and use the data to make a determination to see if there is enough evidence to show that the hypothesis is true. However, in hypothesis testing you actually assume something else is true, and then you look at your data to see how likely it is to get an event that your data demonstrates with that assumption. If the event is very unusual, then you might think that your assumption is actually false. If you are able to say this assumption is false, then your hypothesis must be true. This is known as a proof by contradiction. You assume the opposite of your hypothesis is true and show that it can’t be true. If this happens, then your hypothesis must be true. All hypothesis tests go through the same process. Once you have the process down, then the concept is much easier. It is easier to see the process by looking at an example. Concepts that are needed will be detailed in this example.

Example \(\PageIndex{1}\) basics of hypothesis testing

Suppose a manufacturer of the XJ35 battery claims the mean life of the battery is 500 days with a standard deviation of 25 days. You are the buyer of this battery and you think this claim is inflated. You would like to test your belief because without a good reason you can’t get out of your contract.

What do you do?

Well first, you should know what you are trying to measure. Define the random variable.

Let x = life of a XJ35 battery

Now you are not just trying to find different x values. You are trying to find what the true mean is. Since you are trying to find it, it must be unknown. You don’t think it is 500 days. If you did, you wouldn’t be doing any testing. The true mean, \(\mu\), is unknown. That means you should define that too.

Let \(\mu\)= mean life of a XJ35 battery

You may want to collect a sample. What kind of sample?

You could ask the manufacturers to give you batteries, but there is a chance that there could be some bias in the batteries they pick. To reduce the chance of bias, it is best to take a random sample.

How big should the sample be?

A sample of size 30 or more means that you can use the central limit theorem. Pick a sample of size 30.

Example \(\PageIndex{1}\) contains the data for the sample you collected:

Now what should you do? Looking at the data set, you see some of the times are above 500 and some are below. But looking at all of the numbers is too difficult. It might be helpful to calculate the mean for this sample.

The sample mean is \(\overline{x} = 490\) days. Looking at the sample mean, one might think that you are right. However, the standard deviation and the sample size also plays a role, so maybe you are wrong.

Before going any farther, it is time to formalize a few definitions.

You have a guess that the mean life of a battery is less than 500 days. This is opposed to what the manufacturer claims. There really are two hypotheses, which are just guesses here – the one that the manufacturer claims and the one that you believe. It is helpful to have names for them.

Definition \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Null Hypothesis : historical value, claim, or product specification. The symbol used is \(H_{o}\).

Definition \(\PageIndex{2}\)

Alternate Hypothesis : what you want to prove. This is what you want to accept as true when you reject the null hypothesis. There are two symbols that are commonly used for the alternative hypothesis: \(H_{A}\) or \(H_{I}\). The symbol \(H_{A}\) will be used in this book.

In general, the hypotheses look something like this:

\(H_{o} : \mu=\mu_{o}\)

\(H_{A} : \mu<\mu_{o}\)

where \(\mu_{o}\) just represents the value that the claim says the population mean is actually equal to.

Also, \(H_{A}\) can be less than, greater than, or not equal to.

For this problem:

\(H_{o} : \mu=500\) days, since the manufacturer says the mean life of a battery is 500 days.

\(H_{A} : \mu<500\) days, since you believe that the mean life of the battery is less than 500 days.

Now back to the mean. You have a sample mean of 490 days. Is this small enough to believe that you are right and the manufacturer is wrong? How small does it have to be?

If you calculated a sample mean of 235, you would definitely believe the population mean is less than 500. But even if you had a sample mean of 435 you would probably believe that the true mean was less than 500. What about 475? Or 483? There is some point where you would stop being so sure that the population mean is less than 500. That point separates the values of where you are sure or pretty sure that the mean is less than 500 from the area where you are not so sure. How do you find that point?

Well it depends on how much error you want to make. Of course you don’t want to make any errors, but unfortunately that is unavoidable in statistics. You need to figure out how much error you made with your sample. Take the sample mean, and find the probability of getting another sample mean less than it, assuming for the moment that the manufacturer is right. The idea behind this is that you want to know what is the chance that you could have come up with your sample mean even if the population mean really is 500 days.

You want to find \(P\left(\overline{x}<490 | H_{o} \text { is true }\right)=P(\overline{x}<490 | \mu=500)\)

To compute this probability, you need to know how the sample mean is distributed. Since the sample size is at least 30, then you know the sample mean is approximately normally distributed. Remember \(\mu_{\overline{x}}=\mu\) and \(\sigma_{\overline{x}}=\dfrac{\sigma}{\sqrt{n}}\)

A picture is always useful.

Before calculating the probability, it is useful to see how many standard deviations away from the mean the sample mean is. Using the formula for the z-score from chapter 6, you find

\(z=\dfrac{\overline{x}-\mu_{o}}{\sigma / \sqrt{n}}=\dfrac{490-500}{25 / \sqrt{30}}=-2.19\)

This sample mean is more than two standard deviations away from the mean. That seems pretty far, but you should look at the probability too.

On TI-83/84:

\(P(\overline{x}<490 | \mu=500)=\text { normalcdf }(-1 E 99,490,500,25 \div \sqrt{30}) \approx 0.0142\)

\(P(\overline{x}<490 \mu=500)=\text { pnorm }(490,500,25 / \operatorname{sqrt}(30)) \approx 0.0142\)

There is a 1.42% chance that you could find a sample mean less than 490 when the population mean is 500 days. This is really small, so the chances are that the assumption that the population mean is 500 days is wrong, and you can reject the manufacturer’s claim. But how do you quantify really small? Is 5% or 10% or 15% really small? How do you decide?

Before you answer that question, a couple more definitions are needed.

Definition \(\PageIndex{3}\)

Test Statistic : \(z=\dfrac{\overline{x}-\mu_{o}}{\sigma / \sqrt{n}}\) since it is calculated as part of the testing of the hypothesis.

Definition \(\PageIndex{4}\)

p – value : probability that the test statistic will take on more extreme values than the observed test statistic, given that the null hypothesis is true. It is the probability that was calculated above.

Now, how small is small enough? To answer that, you really want to know the types of errors you can make.

There are actually only two errors that can be made. The first error is if you say that \(H_{o}\) is false, when in fact it is true. This means you reject \(H_{o}\) when \(H_{o}\) was true. The second error is if you say that \(H_{o}\) is true, when in fact it is false. This means you fail to reject \(H_{o}\) when \(H_{o}\) is false. The following table organizes this for you:

Type of errors:

Definition \(\PageIndex{5}\)

Type I Error is rejecting \(H_{o}\) when \(H_{o}\) is true, and

Definition \(\PageIndex{6}\)

Type II Error is failing to reject \(H_{o}\) when \(H_{o}\) is false.

Since these are the errors, then one can define the probabilities attached to each error.

Definition \(\PageIndex{7}\)

\(\alpha\) = P(type I error) = P(rejecting \(H_{o} / H_{o}\) is true)

Definition \(\PageIndex{8}\)

\(\beta\) = P(type II error) = P(failing to reject \(H_{o} / H_{o}\) is false)

\(\alpha\) is also called the level of significance .

Another common concept that is used is Power = \(1-\beta \).

Now there is a relationship between \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\). They are not complements of each other. How are they related?

If \(\alpha\) increases that means the chances of making a type I error will increase. It is more likely that a type I error will occur. It makes sense that you are less likely to make type II errors, only because you will be rejecting \(H_{o}\) more often. You will be failing to reject \(H_{o}\) less, and therefore, the chance of making a type II error will decrease. Thus, as \(\alpha\) increases, \(\beta\) will decrease, and vice versa. That makes them seem like complements, but they aren’t complements. What gives? Consider one more factor – sample size.

Consider if you have a larger sample that is representative of the population, then it makes sense that you have more accuracy then with a smaller sample. Think of it this way, which would you trust more, a sample mean of 490 if you had a sample size of 35 or sample size of 350 (assuming a representative sample)? Of course the 350 because there are more data points and so more accuracy. If you are more accurate, then there is less chance that you will make any error. By increasing the sample size of a representative sample, you decrease both \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\).

Summary of all of this:

• For a certain sample size, n , if \(\alpha\) increases, \(\beta\) decreases.
• For a certain level of significance, \(\alpha\), if n increases, \(\beta\) decreases.

Now how do you find \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\)? Well \(\alpha\) is actually chosen. There are only three values that are usually picked for \(\alpha\): 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10. \(\beta\) is very difficult to find, so usually it isn’t found. If you want to make sure it is small you take as large of a sample as you can afford provided it is a representative sample. This is one use of the Power. You want \(\beta\) to be small and the Power of the test is large. The Power word sounds good.

Which pick of \(\alpha\) do you pick? Well that depends on what you are working on. Remember in this example you are the buyer who is trying to get out of a contract to buy these batteries. If you create a type I error, you said that the batteries are bad when they aren’t, most likely the manufacturer will sue you. You want to avoid this. You might pick \(\alpha\) to be 0.01. This way you have a small chance of making a type I error. Of course this means you have more of a chance of making a type II error. No big deal right? What if the batteries are used in pacemakers and you tell the person that their pacemaker’s batteries are good for 500 days when they actually last less, that might be bad. If you make a type II error, you say that the batteries do last 500 days when they last less, then you have the possibility of killing someone. You certainly do not want to do this. In this case you might want to pick \(\alpha\) as 0.10. If both errors are equally bad, then pick \(\alpha\) as 0.05.

The above discussion is why the choice of \(\alpha\) depends on what you are researching. As the researcher, you are the one that needs to decide what \(\alpha\) level to use based on your analysis of the consequences of making each error is.

If a type I error is really bad, then pick \(\alpha\) = 0.01.

If a type II error is really bad, then pick \(\alpha\) = 0.10

If neither error is bad, or both are equally bad, then pick \(\alpha\) = 0.05

The main thing is to always pick the \(\alpha\) before you collect the data and start the test.

The above discussion was long, but it is really important information. If you don’t know what the errors of the test are about, then there really is no point in making conclusions with the tests. Make sure you understand what the two errors are and what the probabilities are for them.

Now it is time to go back to the example and put this all together. This is the basic structure of testing a hypothesis, usually called a hypothesis test. Since this one has a test statistic involving z, it is also called a z-test. And since there is only one sample, it is usually called a one-sample z-test.

Example \(\PageIndex{2}\) battery example revisited

• State the random variable and the parameter in words.
• State the null and alternative hypothesis and the level of significance.
• A random sample of size n is taken.
• The population standard derivation is known.
• The sample size is at least 30 or the population of the random variable is normally distributed.
• Find the sample statistic, test statistic, and p-value.
• Interpretation

1. x = life of battery

\(\mu\) = mean life of a XJ35 battery

2. \(H_{o} : \mu=500\) days

\(H_{A} : \mu<500\) days

\(\alpha = 0.10\) (from above discussion about consequences)

3. Every hypothesis has some assumptions that be met to make sure that the results of the hypothesis are valid. The assumptions are different for each test. This test has the following assumptions.

• This occurred in this example, since it was stated that a random sample of 30 battery lives were taken.
• This is true, since it was given in the problem.
• The sample size was 30, so this condition is met.

4. The test statistic depends on how many samples there are, what parameter you are testing, and assumptions that need to be checked. In this case, there is one sample and you are testing the mean. The assumptions were checked above.

Sample statistic:

\(\overline{x} = 490\)

Test statistic:

Using TI-83/84:

\(P(\overline{x}<490 | \mu=500)=\text { normalcdf }(-1 \mathrm{E} 99,490,500,25 / \sqrt{30}) \approx 0.0142\)

\(P(\overline{x}<490 | \mu=500)=\operatorname{pnorm}(490,500,25 / \operatorname{sqrt}(30)) \approx 0.0142\)

5. Now what? Well, this p-value is 0.0142. This is a lot smaller than the amount of error you would accept in the problem -\(\alpha\) = 0.10. That means that finding a sample mean less than 490 days is unusual to happen if \(H_{o}\) is true. This should make you think that \(H_{o}\) is not true. You should reject \(H_{o}\).

In fact, in general:

Reject \(H_{o}\) if the p-value < \(\alpha\) and

Fail to reject \(H_{o}\) if the p-value \(\geq \alpha\).

6. Since you rejected \(H_{o}\), what does this mean in the real world? That is what goes in the interpretation. Since you rejected the claim by the manufacturer that the mean life of the batteries is 500 days, then you now can believe that your hypothesis was correct. In other words, there is enough evidence to show that the mean life of the battery is less than 500 days.

Now that you know that the batteries last less than 500 days, should you cancel the contract? Statistically, there is evidence that the batteries do not last as long as the manufacturer says they should. However, based on this sample there are only ten days less on average that the batteries last. There may not be practical significance in this case. Ten days do not seem like a large difference. In reality, if the batteries are used in pacemakers, then you would probably tell the patient to have the batteries replaced every year. You have a large buffer whether the batteries last 490 days or 500 days. It seems that it might not be worth it to break the contract over ten days. What if the 10 days was practically significant? Are there any other things you should consider? You might look at the business relationship with the manufacturer. You might also look at how much it would cost to find a new manufacturer. These are also questions to consider before making any changes. What this discussion should show you is that just because a hypothesis has statistical significance does not mean it has practical significance. The hypothesis test is just one part of a research process. There are other pieces that you need to consider.

That’s it. That is what a hypothesis test looks like. All hypothesis tests are done with the same six steps. Those general six steps are outlined below.

• State the random variable and the parameter in words. This is where you are defining what the unknowns are in this problem. x = random variable \(\mu\) = mean of random variable, if the parameter of interest is the mean. There are other parameters you can test, and you would use the appropriate symbol for that parameter.
• State the null and alternative hypotheses and the level of significance \(H_{o} : \mu=\mu_{o}\), where \(\mu_{o}\) is the known mean \(H_{A} : \mu<\mu_{o}\) \(H_{A} : \mu>\mu_{o}\), use the appropriate one for your problem \(H_{A} : \mu \neq \mu_{o}\) Also, state your \(\alpha\) level here.
• State and check the assumptions for a hypothesis test. Each hypothesis test has its own assumptions. They will be stated when the different hypothesis tests are discussed.
• Find the sample statistic, test statistic, and p-value. This depends on what parameter you are working with, how many samples, and the assumptions of the test. The p-value depends on your \(H_{A}\). If you are doing the \(H_{A}\) with the less than, then it is a left-tailed test, and you find the probability of being in that left tail. If you are doing the \(H_{A}\) with the greater than, then it is a right-tailed test, and you find the probability of being in the right tail. If you are doing the \(H_{A}\) with the not equal to, then you are doing a two-tail test, and you find the probability of being in both tails. Because of symmetry, you could find the probability in one tail and double this value to find the probability in both tails.
• Conclusion This is where you write reject \(H_{o}\) or fail to reject \(H_{o}\). The rule is: if the p-value < \(\alpha\), then reject \(H_{o}\). If the p-value \(\geq \alpha\), then fail to reject \(H_{o}\).
• Interpretation This is where you interpret in real world terms the conclusion to the test. The conclusion for a hypothesis test is that you either have enough evidence to show \(H_{A}\) is true, or you do not have enough evidence to show \(H_{A}\) is true.

Sorry, one more concept about the conclusion and interpretation. First, the conclusion is that you reject \(H_{o}\) or you fail to reject \(H_{o}\). Why was it said like this? It is because you never accept the null hypothesis. If you wanted to accept the null hypothesis, then why do the test in the first place? In the interpretation, you either have enough evidence to show \(H_{A}\) is true, or you do not have enough evidence to show \(H_{A}\) is true. You wouldn’t want to go to all this work and then find out you wanted to accept the claim. Why go through the trouble? You always want to show that the alternative hypothesis is true. Sometimes you can do that and sometimes you can’t. It doesn’t mean you proved the null hypothesis; it just means you can’t prove the alternative hypothesis. Here is an example to demonstrate this.

Example \(\PageIndex{3}\) conclusion in hypothesis tests

In the U.S. court system a jury trial could be set up as a hypothesis test. To really help you see how this works, let’s use OJ Simpson as an example. In the court system, a person is presumed innocent until he/she is proven guilty, and this is your null hypothesis. OJ Simpson was a football player in the 1970s. In 1994 his ex-wife and her friend were killed. OJ Simpson was accused of the crime, and in 1995 the case was tried. The prosecutors wanted to prove OJ was guilty of killing his wife and her friend, and that is the alternative hypothesis

\(H_{0}\): OJ is innocent of killing his wife and her friend

\(H_{A}\): OJ is guilty of killing his wife and her friend

In this case, a verdict of not guilty was given. That does not mean that he is innocent of this crime. It means there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty. Many people believe that OJ was guilty of this crime, but the jury did not feel that the evidence presented was enough to show there was guilt. The verdict in a jury trial is always guilty or not guilty!

The same is true in a hypothesis test. There is either enough or not enough evidence to show that alternative hypothesis. It is not that you proved the null hypothesis true.

When identifying hypothesis, it is important to state your random variable and the appropriate parameter you want to make a decision about. If count something, then the random variable is the number of whatever you counted. The parameter is the proportion of what you counted. If the random variable is something you measured, then the parameter is the mean of what you measured. (Note: there are other parameters you can calculate, and some analysis of those will be presented in later chapters.)

Example \(\PageIndex{4}\) stating hypotheses

Identify the hypotheses necessary to test the following statements:

• The average salary of a teacher is more than $30,000.
• The proportion of students who like math is less than 10%.
• The average age of students in this class differs from 21.

a. x = salary of teacher

\(\mu\) = mean salary of teacher

The guess is that \(\mu>\$ 30,000\) and that is the alternative hypothesis.

The null hypothesis has the same parameter and number with an equal sign.

\(\begin{array}{l}{H_{0} : \mu=\$ 30,000} \\ {H_{A} : \mu>\$ 30,000}\end{array}\)

b. x = number od students who like math

p = proportion of students who like math

The guess is that p < 0.10 and that is the alternative hypothesis.

\(\begin{array}{l}{H_{0} : p=0.10} \\ {H_{A} : p<0.10}\end{array}\)

c. x = age of students in this class

\(\mu\) = mean age of students in this class

The guess is that \(\mu \neq 21\) and that is the alternative hypothesis.

\(\begin{array}{c}{H_{0} : \mu=21} \\ {H_{A} : \mu \neq 21}\end{array}\)

Example \(\PageIndex{5}\) Stating Type I and II Errors and Picking Level of Significance

• The plant-breeding department at a major university developed a new hybrid raspberry plant called YumYum Berry. Based on research data, the claim is made that from the time shoots are planted 90 days on average are required to obtain the first berry with a standard deviation of 9.2 days. A corporation that is interested in marketing the product tests 60 shoots by planting them and recording the number of days before each plant produces its first berry. The sample mean is 92.3 days. The corporation wants to know if the mean number of days is more than the 90 days claimed. State the type I and type II errors in terms of this problem, consequences of each error, and state which level of significance to use.
• A concern was raised in Australia that the percentage of deaths of Aboriginal prisoners was higher than the percent of deaths of non-indigenous prisoners, which is 0.27%. State the type I and type II errors in terms of this problem, consequences of each error, and state which level of significance to use.

a. x = time to first berry for YumYum Berry plant

\(\mu\) = mean time to first berry for YumYum Berry plant

\(\begin{array}{l}{H_{0} : \mu=90} \\ {H_{A} : \mu>90}\end{array}\)

Type I Error: If the corporation does a type I error, then they will say that the plants take longer to produce than 90 days when they don’t. They probably will not want to market the plants if they think they will take longer. They will not market them even though in reality the plants do produce in 90 days. They may have loss of future earnings, but that is all.

Type II error: The corporation do not say that the plants take longer then 90 days to produce when they do take longer. Most likely they will market the plants. The plants will take longer, and so customers might get upset and then the company would get a bad reputation. This would be really bad for the company.

Level of significance: It appears that the corporation would not want to make a type II error. Pick a 10% level of significance, \(\alpha = 0.10\).

b. x = number of Aboriginal prisoners who have died

p = proportion of Aboriginal prisoners who have died

\(\begin{array}{l}{H_{o} : p=0.27 \%} \\ {H_{A} : p>0.27 \%}\end{array}\)

Type I error: Rejecting that the proportion of Aboriginal prisoners who died was 0.27%, when in fact it was 0.27%. This would mean you would say there is a problem when there isn’t one. You could anger the Aboriginal community, and spend time and energy researching something that isn’t a problem.

Type II error: Failing to reject that the proportion of Aboriginal prisoners who died was 0.27%, when in fact it is higher than 0.27%. This would mean that you wouldn’t think there was a problem with Aboriginal prisoners dying when there really is a problem. You risk causing deaths when there could be a way to avoid them.

Level of significance: It appears that both errors may be issues in this case. You wouldn’t want to anger the Aboriginal community when there isn’t an issue, and you wouldn’t want people to die when there may be a way to stop it. It may be best to pick a 5% level of significance, \(\alpha = 0.05\).

Hypothesis testing is really easy if you follow the same recipe every time. The only differences in the various problems are the assumptions of the test and the test statistic you calculate so you can find the p-value. Do the same steps, in the same order, with the same words, every time and these problems become very easy.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

For the problems in this section, a question is being asked. This is to help you understand what the hypotheses are. You are not to run any hypothesis tests and come up with any conclusions in this section.

• Eyeglassomatic manufactures eyeglasses for different retailers. They test to see how many defective lenses they made in a given time period and found that 11% of all lenses had defects of some type. Looking at the type of defects, they found in a three-month time period that out of 34,641 defective lenses, 5865 were due to scratches. Are there more defects from scratches than from all other causes? State the random variable, population parameter, and hypotheses.
• According to the February 2008 Federal Trade Commission report on consumer fraud and identity theft, 23% of all complaints in 2007 were for identity theft. In that year, Alaska had 321 complaints of identity theft out of 1,432 consumer complaints ("Consumer fraud and," 2008). Does this data provide enough evidence to show that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%? State the random variable, population parameter, and hypotheses.
• The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, and required countries to start reducing their carbon emissions. The protocol became enforceable in February 2005. In 2004, the mean CO2 emission was 4.87 metric tons per capita. Is there enough evidence to show that the mean CO2 emission is lower in 2010 than in 2004? State the random variable, population parameter, and hypotheses.
• The FDA regulates that fish that is consumed is allowed to contain 1.0 mg/kg of mercury. In Florida, bass fish were collected in 53 different lakes to measure the amount of mercury in the fish. The data for the average amount of mercury in each lake is in Example \(\PageIndex{5}\) ("Multi-disciplinary niser activity," 2013). Do the data provide enough evidence to show that the fish in Florida lakes has more mercury than the allowable amount? State the random variable, population parameter, and hypotheses.
• Eyeglassomatic manufactures eyeglasses for different retailers. They test to see how many defective lenses they made in a given time period and found that 11% of all lenses had defects of some type. Looking at the type of defects, they found in a three-month time period that out of 34,641 defective lenses, 5865 were due to scratches. Are there more defects from scratches than from all other causes? State the type I and type II errors in this case, consequences of each error type for this situation from the perspective of the manufacturer, and the appropriate alpha level to use. State why you picked this alpha level.
• According to the February 2008 Federal Trade Commission report on consumer fraud and identity theft, 23% of all complaints in 2007 were for identity theft. In that year, Alaska had 321 complaints of identity theft out of 1,432 consumer complaints ("Consumer fraud and," 2008). Does this data provide enough evidence to show that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%? State the type I and type II errors in this case, consequences of each error type for this situation from the perspective of the state of Arizona, and the appropriate alpha level to use. State why you picked this alpha level.
• The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, and required countries to start reducing their carbon emissions. The protocol became enforceable in February 2005. In 2004, the mean CO2 emission was 4.87 metric tons per capita. Is there enough evidence to show that the mean CO2 emission is lower in 2010 than in 2004? State the type I and type II errors in this case, consequences of each error type for this situation from the perspective of the agency overseeing the protocol, and the appropriate alpha level to use. State why you picked this alpha level.
• The FDA regulates that fish that is consumed is allowed to contain 1.0 mg/kg of mercury. In Florida, bass fish were collected in 53 different lakes to measure the amount of mercury in the fish. The data for the average amount of mercury in each lake is in Example \(\PageIndex{5}\) ("Multi-disciplinary niser activity," 2013). Do the data provide enough evidence to show that the fish in Florida lakes has more mercury than the allowable amount? State the type I and type II errors in this case, consequences of each error type for this situation from the perspective of the FDA, and the appropriate alpha level to use. State why you picked this alpha level.

1. \(H_{o} : p=0.11, H_{A} : p>0.11\)

3. \(H_{o} : \mu=4.87 \text { metric tons per capita, } H_{A} : \mu<4.87 \text { metric tons per capita }\)

5. See solutions

7. See solutions

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

The Craft of Writing a Strong Hypothesis

Table of Contents

Writing a hypothesis is one of the essential elements of a scientific research paper. It needs to be to the point, clearly communicating what your research is trying to accomplish. A blurry, drawn-out, or complexly-structured hypothesis can confuse your readers. Or worse, the editor and peer reviewers.

A captivating hypothesis is not too intricate. This blog will take you through the process so that, by the end of it, you have a better idea of how to convey your research paper's intent in just one sentence.

What is a Hypothesis?

The first step in your scientific endeavor, a hypothesis, is a strong, concise statement that forms the basis of your research. It is not the same as a thesis statement , which is a brief summary of your research paper .

The sole purpose of a hypothesis is to predict your paper's findings, data, and conclusion. It comes from a place of curiosity and intuition . When you write a hypothesis, you're essentially making an educated guess based on scientific prejudices and evidence, which is further proven or disproven through the scientific method.

The reason for undertaking research is to observe a specific phenomenon. A hypothesis, therefore, lays out what the said phenomenon is. And it does so through two variables, an independent and dependent variable.

The independent variable is the cause behind the observation, while the dependent variable is the effect of the cause. A good example of this is “mixing red and blue forms purple.” In this hypothesis, mixing red and blue is the independent variable as you're combining the two colors at your own will. The formation of purple is the dependent variable as, in this case, it is conditional to the independent variable.

Different Types of Hypotheses‌

Types of hypotheses

Some would stand by the notion that there are only two types of hypotheses: a Null hypothesis and an Alternative hypothesis. While that may have some truth to it, it would be better to fully distinguish the most common forms as these terms come up so often, which might leave you out of context.

Apart from Null and Alternative, there are Complex, Simple, Directional, Non-Directional, Statistical, and Associative and casual hypotheses. They don't necessarily have to be exclusive, as one hypothesis can tick many boxes, but knowing the distinctions between them will make it easier for you to construct your own.

1. Null hypothesis

A null hypothesis proposes no relationship between two variables. Denoted by H 0 , it is a negative statement like “Attending physiotherapy sessions does not affect athletes' on-field performance.” Here, the author claims physiotherapy sessions have no effect on on-field performances. Even if there is, it's only a coincidence.

2. Alternative hypothesis

Considered to be the opposite of a null hypothesis, an alternative hypothesis is donated as H1 or Ha. It explicitly states that the dependent variable affects the independent variable. A good  alternative hypothesis example is “Attending physiotherapy sessions improves athletes' on-field performance.” or “Water evaporates at 100 °C. ” The alternative hypothesis further branches into directional and non-directional.

• Directional hypothesis: A hypothesis that states the result would be either positive or negative is called directional hypothesis. It accompanies H1 with either the ‘<' or ‘>' sign.
• Non-directional hypothesis: A non-directional hypothesis only claims an effect on the dependent variable. It does not clarify whether the result would be positive or negative. The sign for a non-directional hypothesis is ‘≠.'

3. Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement made to reflect the relation between exactly two variables. One independent and one dependent. Consider the example, “Smoking is a prominent cause of lung cancer." The dependent variable, lung cancer, is dependent on the independent variable, smoking.

4. Complex hypothesis

In contrast to a simple hypothesis, a complex hypothesis implies the relationship between multiple independent and dependent variables. For instance, “Individuals who eat more fruits tend to have higher immunity, lesser cholesterol, and high metabolism.” The independent variable is eating more fruits, while the dependent variables are higher immunity, lesser cholesterol, and high metabolism.

5. Associative and casual hypothesis

Associative and casual hypotheses don't exhibit how many variables there will be. They define the relationship between the variables. In an associative hypothesis, changing any one variable, dependent or independent, affects others. In a casual hypothesis, the independent variable directly affects the dependent.

6. Empirical hypothesis

Also referred to as the working hypothesis, an empirical hypothesis claims a theory's validation via experiments and observation. This way, the statement appears justifiable and different from a wild guess.

Say, the hypothesis is “Women who take iron tablets face a lesser risk of anemia than those who take vitamin B12.” This is an example of an empirical hypothesis where the researcher  the statement after assessing a group of women who take iron tablets and charting the findings.

7. Statistical hypothesis

The point of a statistical hypothesis is to test an already existing hypothesis by studying a population sample. Hypothesis like “44% of the Indian population belong in the age group of 22-27.” leverage evidence to prove or disprove a particular statement.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

Writing a hypothesis is essential as it can make or break your research for you. That includes your chances of getting published in a journal. So when you're designing one, keep an eye out for these pointers:

• A research hypothesis has to be simple yet clear to look justifiable enough.
• It has to be testable — your research would be rendered pointless if too far-fetched into reality or limited by technology.
• It has to be precise about the results —what you are trying to do and achieve through it should come out in your hypothesis.
• A research hypothesis should be self-explanatory, leaving no doubt in the reader's mind.
• If you are developing a relational hypothesis, you need to include the variables and establish an appropriate relationship among them.
• A hypothesis must keep and reflect the scope for further investigations and experiments.

Separating a Hypothesis from a Prediction

Outside of academia, hypothesis and prediction are often used interchangeably. In research writing, this is not only confusing but also incorrect. And although a hypothesis and prediction are guesses at their core, there are many differences between them.

A hypothesis is an educated guess or even a testable prediction validated through research. It aims to analyze the gathered evidence and facts to define a relationship between variables and put forth a logical explanation behind the nature of events.

Predictions are assumptions or expected outcomes made without any backing evidence. They are more fictionally inclined regardless of where they originate from.

For this reason, a hypothesis holds much more weight than a prediction. It sticks to the scientific method rather than pure guesswork. "Planets revolve around the Sun." is an example of a hypothesis as it is previous knowledge and observed trends. Additionally, we can test it through the scientific method.

Whereas "COVID-19 will be eradicated by 2030." is a prediction. Even though it results from past trends, we can't prove or disprove it. So, the only way this gets validated is to wait and watch if COVID-19 cases end by 2030.

Finally, How to Write a Hypothesis

Quick tips on writing a hypothesis

1.  Be clear about your research question

A hypothesis should instantly address the research question or the problem statement. To do so, you need to ask a question. Understand the constraints of your undertaken research topic and then formulate a simple and topic-centric problem. Only after that can you develop a hypothesis and further test for evidence.

2. Carry out a recce

Once you have your research's foundation laid out, it would be best to conduct preliminary research. Go through previous theories, academic papers, data, and experiments before you start curating your research hypothesis. It will give you an idea of your hypothesis's viability or originality.

Making use of references from relevant research papers helps draft a good research hypothesis. SciSpace Discover offers a repository of over 270 million research papers to browse through and gain a deeper understanding of related studies on a particular topic. Additionally, you can use SciSpace Copilot , your AI research assistant, for reading any lengthy research paper and getting a more summarized context of it. A hypothesis can be formed after evaluating many such summarized research papers. Copilot also offers explanations for theories and equations, explains paper in simplified version, allows you to highlight any text in the paper or clip math equations and tables and provides a deeper, clear understanding of what is being said. This can improve the hypothesis by helping you identify potential research gaps.

3. Create a 3-dimensional hypothesis

Variables are an essential part of any reasonable hypothesis. So, identify your independent and dependent variable(s) and form a correlation between them. The ideal way to do this is to write the hypothetical assumption in the ‘if-then' form. If you use this form, make sure that you state the predefined relationship between the variables.

In another way, you can choose to present your hypothesis as a comparison between two variables. Here, you must specify the difference you expect to observe in the results.

4. Write the first draft

Now that everything is in place, it's time to write your hypothesis. For starters, create the first draft. In this version, write what you expect to find from your research.

Clearly separate your independent and dependent variables and the link between them. Don't fixate on syntax at this stage. The goal is to ensure your hypothesis addresses the issue.

5. Proof your hypothesis

After preparing the first draft of your hypothesis, you need to inspect it thoroughly. It should tick all the boxes, like being concise, straightforward, relevant, and accurate. Your final hypothesis has to be well-structured as well.

Research projects are an exciting and crucial part of being a scholar. And once you have your research question, you need a great hypothesis to begin conducting research. Thus, knowing how to write a hypothesis is very important.

Now that you have a firmer grasp on what a good hypothesis constitutes, the different kinds there are, and what process to follow, you will find it much easier to write your hypothesis, which ultimately helps your research.

Now it's easier than ever to streamline your research workflow with SciSpace Discover . Its integrated, comprehensive end-to-end platform for research allows scholars to easily discover, write and publish their research and fosters collaboration.

It includes everything you need, including a repository of over 270 million research papers across disciplines, SEO-optimized summaries and public profiles to show your expertise and experience.

If you found these tips on writing a research hypothesis useful, head over to our blog on Statistical Hypothesis Testing to learn about the top researchers, papers, and institutions in this domain.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. what is the definition of hypothesis.

According to the Oxford dictionary, a hypothesis is defined as “An idea or explanation of something that is based on a few known facts, but that has not yet been proved to be true or correct”.

2. What is an example of hypothesis?

The hypothesis is a statement that proposes a relationship between two or more variables. An example: "If we increase the number of new users who join our platform by 25%, then we will see an increase in revenue."

3. What is an example of null hypothesis?

A null hypothesis is a statement that there is no relationship between two variables. The null hypothesis is written as H0. The null hypothesis states that there is no effect. For example, if you're studying whether or not a particular type of exercise increases strength, your null hypothesis will be "there is no difference in strength between people who exercise and people who don't."

4. What are the types of research?

• Fundamental research

• Applied research

• Qualitative research

• Quantitative research

• Mixed research

• Exploratory research

• Longitudinal research

• Cross-sectional research

• Field research

• Laboratory research

• Fixed research

• Flexible research

• Action research

• Policy research

• Classification research

• Comparative research

• Causal research

• Inductive research

• Deductive research

5. How to write a hypothesis?

• Your hypothesis should be able to predict the relationship and outcome.

• Avoid wordiness by keeping it simple and brief.

• Your hypothesis should contain observable and testable outcomes.

• Your hypothesis should be relevant to the research question.

6. What are the 2 types of hypothesis?

• Null hypotheses are used to test the claim that "there is no difference between two groups of data".

• Alternative hypotheses test the claim that "there is a difference between two data groups".

7. Difference between research question and research hypothesis?

A research question is a broad, open-ended question you will try to answer through your research. A hypothesis is a statement based on prior research or theory that you expect to be true due to your study. Example - Research question: What are the factors that influence the adoption of the new technology? Research hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between age, education and income level with the adoption of the new technology.

8. What is plural for hypothesis?

The plural of hypothesis is hypotheses. Here's an example of how it would be used in a statement, "Numerous well-considered hypotheses are presented in this part, and they are supported by tables and figures that are well-illustrated."

9. What is the red queen hypothesis?

The red queen hypothesis in evolutionary biology states that species must constantly evolve to avoid extinction because if they don't, they will be outcompeted by other species that are evolving. Leigh Van Valen first proposed it in 1973; since then, it has been tested and substantiated many times.

10. Who is known as the father of null hypothesis?

The father of the null hypothesis is Sir Ronald Fisher. He published a paper in 1925 that introduced the concept of null hypothesis testing, and he was also the first to use the term itself.

11. When to reject null hypothesis?

You need to find a significant difference between your two populations to reject the null hypothesis. You can determine that by running statistical tests such as an independent sample t-test or a dependent sample t-test. You should reject the null hypothesis if the p-value is less than 0.05.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing