Loading...
The first test you meet applies the logic of the previous lesson to a population . The observed count of successes is compared against what a binomial with the hypothesised would produce, and the question is whether the result is too extreme to be comfortable.
The big picture
There are two routes to the same conclusion and it is worth being fluent in both. The asks how likely a result at least as extreme as the observed one would be, and compares that with . The works out in advance which outcomes would trigger rejection, then checks whether the observation lands there. They always agree, but questions ask for them by name — and the critical region method is the only practical one when a question asks for the actual significance level or for the region itself.
What you'll be able to do
State the hypotheses, define the distribution under , then compute the probability of a result as the one observed, in the direction of .
For with an observed count , that is . For , it is .
Compare with . If the probability is smaller, the result is unlikely enough under to reject it; if larger, there is insufficient evidence.
The phrase "at least as extreme" matters. Using rather than the tail probability is a standard error — a single outcome can be unlikely without the result being surprising in the relevant direction.
Tip — Write the comparison line explicitly — ", so reject ". It is where the decision mark lives.
The critical region is worked out before looking at the observation. For a lower-tailed test, find the largest with ; the region is .
Because the binomial is discrete you cannot usually hit exactly, so you take the largest region that does not exceed it. The probability of that region is the , and it will be below the nominal figure.
For an upper-tailed test the same logic applies from the top: find the smallest with .
Notice the jump from to between consecutive values. Discreteness means the achievable significance levels come in steps, which is exactly why the actual level rarely equals the nominal one.
A two-tailed test splits the significance level, putting in each tail. At that means at each end.
Using the probability method, find the tail probability in the direction the observation actually fell and compare it with — not with . Comparing against the full level is the commonest error in two-tailed questions.
Using critical regions, both tails must be found: the largest with and the smallest with . The actual significance level is then the sum of the two tail probabilities.
Tip — Against the full this result would also be significant, but the two-tailed comparison is the correct one and questions are often set so the two answers differ.
Every binomial test should show the same five stages, and the marks are distributed across them rather than concentrated in the arithmetic.
First define the parameter in words. Second state and in symbols. Third state the distribution assumed under . Fourth compute the tail probability or critical region and show the comparison. Fifth conclude in context, tentatively.
Missing the definition or the context sentence loses marks even when the calculation is perfect, which is why the layout is worth practising as a routine.
Note the conclusion says "suggest", not "prove". With a level, results this extreme arise by chance one time in twenty even when nothing has changed — the tentativeness is an accurate description of what the test establishes.
Think like an examiner
Common misconceptions
Binomial testing
Stretch yourself
A manufacturer claims at most 5% of its components are faulty. A sample of 50 contains 6 faulty components. Test the claim at the significance level, given and for . Also state the critical region.
Hint — The claim is "at most 5%", so the suspicion is that the rate is higher. That fixes the tail.
Questions students ask
Key takeaways
How this fits the course
Related
Leads to
Test yourself
Ready to lock in Binomial Hypothesis Tests? Pick a mode and earn XP & Dobloons.
Real past-paper questions on Binomial Hypothesis Tests, marked mark-by-mark. How you do feeds straight into your weak-topic list, so your revision keeps targeting what actually needs work.