Duality: Confidence intervals and the severity of tests

confidence intervalA question came up in our seminar today about how to understand the duality between a simple one-sided test and a lower limit (LL) of a corresponding 1-sided confidence interval estimate. This is also a good route to SEV (i.e., severity). Here’s a quick answer:

Consider our favorite test of the mean of a Normal distribution with n iid samples, and known standard deviation σ: test T+. This time let:

H0: µ ≤  0 against H1: µ >  0 , and let σ= 1.

Nothing of interest to the logic changes if s.d. is estimated as is more typical. If σ = 1, n = 25, (σ/ √n) = .2.

The (1 – α) confidence interval (CI) corresponding to test T+ is that µ > the (1 – α) LL:

µ > M – ca(1/ √n ).

where M represents the statistic, usually written X-bar, the sample mean. For example,

M – 2.5(1/ √n )

is the generic lower limit (LL) of a 99% CI. The impressive thing is that this holds regardless of the true value of µ. If, for any M you assert:

µ > M – ca(1/ √n ),

your assertions will be correct 99% of the time. [Once the data are in hand, M takes the value of a particular sample mean. Without quantifiers, this is a little imprecise.]

Now for the duality between CIs and tests. How does it work?

Put aside for the moment our fixed hypothesis of interest; just retain the form of test T+. Keeping the s.d. of 1, and n = 25, suppose we have observed M = .6.

Consider the question: For what value of µ0 would M = .6 be the 2.5 s.d. cut-off (in test T+)? That is, for what value of µ0 would an observed mean of .6 exceed µby 2.5 s.d.s? (Or again, for what value of µ0 would our observation reach a p-value of .01 in test T+?)

Clearly, the answer is in testing H0: µ ≤  .1 against H1: µ >  .1.

The corresponding .99 lower limit of the one-sided confidence interval would be:

[.1 < µ , infinity]

 The duality with tests says that these are the µ values (in the given model and test) that would not be statistically significant at the .01 level, had they been the ones tested in T+. For example:

H0: µ ≤  .15 would not be rejected, nor would H0: µ ≤  .2, H0: µ ≤  .25 and so on. That’s because the observed M is not statistically significantly greater (at the .01 level) than any of the µ values in the interval. Since this is continuous, it does not matter if the cut-off is just at .1 or values greater than .1.

On the other hand, a test hypothesis of H0: µ ≤  .09 would be rejected by M = .6; as would µ ≤  .08, µ ≤  .07…. H0: µ ≤  0, and so on. Using significance test language again, the observed M is statistically significantly greater than all these values (p-level smaller than .01), and at smaller and smaller levels of significance.

Under the supposition that the data were generated from a world where H0: µ ≤  .1 against µ >.1,  at least 99% of the time a larger M than was observed would occur.

The test was so incapable of having produced so large a value of M as .6, were µ less than the 99% CI lower bound, that we argue there is an indication (if not full blown evidence) that µ > .1.

We are assuming these values are “audited”, and the assumptions of the model permit the computations to be approximately valid. Following Fisher, evidence of an experimental effect requires more than a single, isolated significant result, but let us say that is satisfied.

The severity with which µ > .1 “passes” the test with this result M = .6 (in test T+)  is ~ .99.

SEV( µ > .1, test T+, M = .6) = P(M < .6; µ =.1) = P( Z < (.6 – .1)/.2)=

P(Z < 2.5) = .99.

Here’s a little chart for this example:

Duality between LL of 1-sided confidence intervals and a fixed outcome M = .6 of test T+: H0: µ ≤  µ0 vs H1: µ >  µ0. σ = 1, n = 25, (σ/ √n) = .2. These computations are approximate.

Were µ no greater than The capability of T+ to produce M as large as .6 is _ µ is the 1-sided LL with level _ Claim C SEV associated with C
.1 .01 .99 (µ > .1) .99
.2 .025 .975 (µ > .2) .975
.3 .07 .93 (µ > .3) .93
.4 .16 .84 (µ > .4) .84
.5 .3 .7 (µ > .5) .7
.6 .5 .5 (µ > .6) .5
.7 .69 .31 (µ > .7) .31

In all these cases, the test had fairly low capability to produce M as large at .6–the largest it gets is .69. I’ll consider what the test is more capable of doing in another post. Note that: as the capability increases, the corresponding confidence level decreases.

Categories: confidence intervals and tests, Phil6334 | Leave a comment

Post navigation

I welcome constructive comments that are of relevance to the post and the discussion, and discourage detours into irrelevant topics, however interesting, or unconstructive declarations that "you (or they) are just all wrong". If you want to correct or remove a comment, send me an e-mail. If readers have already replied to the comment, you may be asked to replace it to retain comprehension.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.