Formulating and Testing Hypothesis: July 2016
Formulating and Testing Hypothesis: July 2016
net/publication/325846748
CITATIONS READS
0 74,855
1 author:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Syed Muhammad Sajjad Kabir on 25 June 2018.
CHAPTER – 4
Topics Covered
4.1 Definition of Hypothesis
4.2 Assumption, Postulate and Hypothesis
4.3 Nature of Hypothesis
4.4 Functions/ Roles of Hypothesis
4.5 Importance of Hypothesis
4.6 Characteristics of A Good Hypothesis
4.7 Origins/ Sources of Hypothesis
4.8 Types of Research Hypothesis
4.9 Uses of Hypotheses in Educational Research
4.10 Formulating Hypothesis
4.10.1 Level of Significance
4.10.2 Critical Region
4.10.3 Confidence Interval
4.10.4 Critical Values
4.10.5 Standard Deviation
4.10.6 Standard Error
4.10.7 Degree of Freedom
4.10.8 One-tailed and Two-tailed Tests
4.10.9 Directional and Non-directional Tests
4.11 Testing the Hypothesis
4.12 Statistical Errors in Hypothesis
4.13 Statistical Power of Research
4.14 Limitation of the Tests of Hypothesis
4.15 Criteria for Evaluating Hypothesis
Chapter - 4 Formulating and Testing Hypothesis Page 52
Serve as a framework for the conclusive - in short a good hypothesis: (a) Gives help in deciding
the direction in which he has to proceed. (b) It helps in selecting pertinent fact. (c) It helps in
drawing conclusions.
Van Dalen advocates the importance of hypothesis in the following ways -
Hypotheses are indispensable research instrument, for they build a bridge between the problem
and the location of empirical evidence that may solve the problem.
A hypothesis provides the map that guides and expedites the exploration of the phenomena
under consideration.
A hypothesis pin points the problem. The investigator can examine thoroughly the factual and
conceptual elements that appear to be related to a problem.
Using hypothesis determines the relevancy of facts. A hypothesis directs the researcher’s
efforts into a productive channels.
The hypothesis indicates not only what to look for is an investigation but how to obtain data. It
helps in deciding research design. It may suggest what subjects, tests, tools, and techniques are
needed.
The hypothesis provides the investigator with the most efficient instrument for exploring and
explaining the unknown facts.
A hypothesis provides the framework for drawing conclusions.
These hypotheses simulate the investigator for further research studies.
terms that are communicable or definitions that are commonly accepted. It should be stated as far
as possible in most simple terms so that it can be easily understandable all concerned. Researcher
should not create ‘a private world of words’.
Hypothesis should be specific: No vague or value-judgmental terms should be used in formulation of
a hypothesis. It should specifically state the posited relationship between the variables. It should
include a clear statement of all the predictions and operations indicated therein and they should be
precisely spelled out. Specific formulation of a hypothesis assures that research is practicable and
significant. It helps to increase the validity of results because the more specific the statement or
prediction, the smaller the probability that it will actually be borne out as a result of mere accident
or chance. A researcher, therefore, must remember that narrower hypothesis is generally more
testable and s/he should develop such a hypothesis.
Hypothesis should be empirically testable: It should have empirical referents so that it will be
possible to deduce certain logical deductions and inferences about it. Therefore, a researcher
should take utmost care that his/her hypothesis embodies concepts or variables that have clear
empirical correspondence and not concepts or variables that are loaded with moral judgments or
values. Such statements as ‘criminals are no worse than businessmen’, ‘capitalists exploit their
workers’, ‘bad parents beget bad children’, ‘bad homes breed criminality’, or ‘pigs are well named
because they are so dirty’ can hardly be usable hypotheses as they do not have any empirical
referents for testing their validity. In other words, a researcher should avoid using terms loaded
with values or beliefs or words having moral or attitudinal connotations in his hypothesis.
Hypothesis should be related to available techniques: Researcher may ignorance of the available
techniques, makes him/her weak in formulating a workable hypothesis. A hypothesis, therefore,
needs to be formulated only after due thought has been given to the methods and techniques that
can be used for measuring the concepts or variables incorporated in the hypothesis.
Hypothesis should be related to a body of theory or some theoretical orientation: A hypothesis, if
tested, helps to qualify, support, correct or refute an existing theory, only if it is related to some
theory or has some theoretical orientation. A hypothesis imaginatively formulated does not only
elaborate and improve existing theory but may also suggest important links between it and some
other theories. Thus, exercise of deriving hypothesis from a body of theory may also be an occasion
for scientific leap into newer areas of knowledge.
A hypothesis derived from a theory invests its creator with the power of prediction of its future.
The potency of hypothesis in regard to predictive purpose constitutes a great advancement in
scientific knowledge. A genuine contribution to knowledge is more likely to result from such a
hypothesis. A hypothesis, it is said, to be preferred is one which can predict what will happen, and
from which we can infer what has already happened, even if we did not know (it had happened) when
the hypothesis was formulated.
A hypothesis or a set of hypotheses may originate from a variety of sources. The source of
hypothesis, however, has an important bearing on the nature of contribution in the existing body of
knowledge. A few prominent sources of hypothesis are discussed here below.
Hunch or intuition: A hypothesis may be based simply on hunch or intuition of a person. It is a sort
of virgin idea. Such a hypothesis, if tested, may ultimately make an important contribution to the
existing science or body of knowledge. However, when a hypothesis is tested in only one study, it
suffers from two limitations. First, there is no assurance that the relationship established between
the two variables incorporated in the hypothesis will be found in other studies. Secondly, the
findings of such a hypothesis are likely to be unrelated to, or unconnected with other theories or
body of science. They are likely to remain isolated bits of information. Nevertheless, these findings
may raise interesting questions of worth pursuing. They may stimulate further research, and if
substantiated, may integrate into an explanatory theory.
Findings of other: A hypothesis may originate from findings of other study or studies. A hypothesis
that rests on the findings of other studies is obviously free from the first limitation, i.e. there is no
assurance that it may relate with other studies. If such a hypothesis is proved, it confirms findings
of the earlier studies though it replicates earlier study conducted in different concrete conditions.
A theory or a body of theory: A hypothesis may stem from existing theory or a body of theory. A
theory represents logical deductions of relationship between inter-related proved facts. A
researcher may formulate a hypothesis, predicting or proposing certain relationship between the
facts or propositions interwoven in a theory, for verifying or reconfirming the relationship. A
theory gives direction to research by stating what is known. Logical deductions from these known
facts may trigger off new hypotheses.
General social culture: General social culture furnishes many of its basic hypotheses. Particular
value-orientation in the culture, if it catches attention of social scientists for their careful
observation, generates a number of empirically testable propositions in the form of hypotheses.
Analogy: Analogies may be one of the fertile sources of hypothesis. Analogies stimulate new valuable
hypotheses. They are often a fountainhead of valuable hypotheses. Even casual observation in the
nature or in the framework of another science may be a fertile source of hypotheses. A proved
particular pattern of human behavior, in a set of circumstances or social settings, may be a source
of hypothesis. A researcher may be tempted to test these established co-relations with similar
attributes in different social settings. Researcher may be interested to test these analogies in a
sort of different settings and circumstances. Researcher seeks inspiration for formulating the
hypothesis from analogies of others. However, a researcher, when s/he uses analogy as a source of
his/her hypothesis, needs to carefully appreciate the theoretical framework in which the analogy
was drawn and its relevancy in the new frame of reference.
Personal experience: Not only do culture, science and analogy, among others, affect the formulation
of hypotheses. The way in which an individual reacts to each of these is also a factor in the
statement of hypotheses. Therefore, individual experience of an individual contributes to the type
and the form of the questions researcher asks, as also to the kinds of tentative answers to these
questions (hypotheses) that s/he might provide. Some scientists may perceive an interesting pattern
from merely seem a ‘jumble of facts’ to a common man. The history of science is full of instances of
discoveries made because the ‘right’ individual happened to make the ‘right’ observation because of
researcher particular life history, personal experience or exposure to a unique mosaic of events.
Researcher personal experience or life history may influence his/her perception and conception and
in turn direct quite readily to formulate certain hypothesis.
Thus, a hypothesis may originate from a variety of sources, in isolation or in combination with
another. However, in spite of these fertile sources of hypotheses, it is not easy to formulate a
usable or workable hypothesis. It is often more difficult to find and formulate a problem than to
solve it. If a researcher succeeds in formulating a hypothesis, s/he can assure that it is half-solved.
While formulating a hypothesis, researcher has to keep reminding that s/he has to formulate
tentative proposition in such a way that it becomes usable in systematic study.
journal articles generally use this form of hypothesis. The investigator bases this hypothesis on the
trends apparent from previous research on this topic. Considering the example, a researcher may
state the hypothesis as, ‘High school students who participate in extracurricular activities have a
lower GPA than those who do not participate in such activities.’ Such hypotheses provide a definite
direction to the prediction.
Nondirectional Hypothesis: This form of hypothesis is used in studies where there is no sufficient
past research on which to base a prediction. Do not stipulate the direction of the relationship.
Continuing with the same example, a nondirectional hypothesis would read, ‘The academic
performance of high school students is related to their participation in extracurricular activities.’
Associative Hypothesis: Associative hypotheses propose relationships between variables, when one
variable changes, the other changes. Do not indicate cause and effect.
Causal Hypothesis: Causal hypotheses propose a cause and effect interaction between two or more
variables. The independent variable is manipulated to cause effect on the dependent variable. The
dependent variable is measured to examine the effect created by the independent variable. For the
example mentioned, the causal hypothesis will state, ‘High school students who participate in
extracurricular activities spend less time studying which leads to a low GPA.’ When verifying such
hypotheses, the researcher needs to use statistical techniques to demonstrate the presence of a
relationship between the cause and effect. Such hypotheses also need the researcher to rule out
the possibility that the effect is a result of a cause other than what the study has examined.
Inductive and Deductive Hypotheses: Inductive hypotheses are formed through inductively
reasoning from many specific observations to tentative explanations. Deductive hypotheses are
formed through deductively reasoning implications of theory.
Null Hypothesis: This is a hypothesis that proposes no relationship or difference between two
variables. This is the conventional approach to making a prediction. It involves a statement that says
there is no relationship between two groups that the researcher compares on a certain variable. The
hypothesis may also state that there is no significant difference when different groups are
compared with respect to a particular variable. For example, ‘There is no difference in the academic
performance of high school students who participate in extracurricular activities and those who do
not participate in such activities’ is a null hypothesis. It asserts that there is no true difference in
the sample statistic and population parameter under consideration (hence the word ‘null’ which means
invalid, void, or a mounting to nothing) and that the difference found is accidental arising out of
fluctuations of sampling. It is denoted as H0.
Table 4.1
States of Nature and Decisions on Null Hypothesis
Decision on States of Nature
Null Hypothesis Null Hypothesis True Null Hypothesis False
Accept Correct Decision Type II error
Probability = 1- α Probability = β
Reject Type I error Correct Decision
Probability = α Probability = 1- β
(α is called significance level) (1- β is called power of a test)
The rejection of the null hypothesis indicates that the differences have statistical significance and
the acceptance of the null hypothesis indicates that the differences are due to chance.
Alternate or Research Hypothesis: This hypothesis proposes a relationship between two or more
variables, symbolized as H1. For example, if a researcher was interested in examining the
relationship between music and emotion, s/he may believe that there is a relationship between music
and emotion.
H1 (the research/alternate hypothesis): Music at a fast tempo is rated by participants as being
happier than music at a slow tempo.
H0 (the null hypothesis): Music at a fast tempo and at a slow tempo is rated the same in happiness by
participants.
The two hypotheses we propose to test must be mutually exclusive; i.e., when one is true the other
must be false. And we see that they must be exhaustive; they must include all possible occurrences.
Statistical Hypothesis: Statistical hypothesis is an assumption about statistical populations that
one seeks to support or refute. The null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis together are called
statistical hypothesis.
Where, SD = Standard Deviation; Σ = Sum of; X = Individual Score; M = Mean of All Scores; n =
Sample Size (number of scores).
To reject H0: μ1− μ2 ≤ 0 and accept H1: μ1− μ2 > 0, using the normal distribution, a normal deviate
greater than +1.64 is required for significant at the 0.05 level. Likewise to reject H0: μ1− μ2 ≥ 0 and
accept H1: μ1− μ2 < 0, the corresponding normal curve is less than -1.64. The fact that for a normal
distribution 5 percent of the area of the curve falls beyond +1.64 standard deviation units above
the mean, and 5% beyond -1.64 standard deviation units below the mean.
The choice between a non-directional or directional alternative hypothesis should be determined by
the rationale that gives rise to the study and should be made before the data are gathered. The
major advantage of a directional alternative hypothesis is that it takes less of a deviation from
expectation to reject the null hypothesis.
between assumed and actual value of the parameter is the null hypothesis and the hypothesis
that is different from the null hypothesis is the alternative hypothesis. The hypotheses are
stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive. That is, if one is true, the other must be
false; and vice versa.
3. Set up a Statistical Significance Level: Set the significance level (α) if not already given. α
specifies the critical region. Often, researchers choose significance levels equal to 0.01, 0.05, or
0.10; but any value between 0 and 1 can be used.
4. Determination of a Suitable Test Statistic: Test statistic is a formula or function on sample
data. A general formula for test statistic –
When the null hypothesis involves a mean or proportion, use either of the following equations to
compute the test statistic.
Test statistic = (Statistic - Parameter) / (Standard deviation of statistic)
Test statistic = (Statistic - Parameter) / (Standard error of statistic)
Where, Parameter is the value appearing in the null hypothesis, and Statistic is the point
estimate of Parameter.
5. Determine the Critical Region: It is important to specify the acceptance (confidence interval)
and rejection (critical) region before the sample is taken, which values of the test statistic will
lead to a rejection or acceptance of H0.
6. Doing Computations: Compute the appropriate test statistic based on sample information.
7. Interpret the Results: Examine whether the calculated test statistic falls in the acceptance or
rejection region. If it falls in the rejection region (critical region), the null hypothesis is
rejected. If it falls in the accepted region, the null hypothesis is accepted.
8. Making Decision: Make the suitable conclusion for the problem under study.
Example: In a sample study of 64 students are obtained mean 106, standard deviation 20, level of significance 0.05 and H0:μ
= 100. Test the null hypothesis?
Solution 0.5 – 0.025 =
Step 1: Given- Mean, ͞x = 106; Standard Deviation, SD = 20; N = 64 0.4750 0.4750
students. 0.025 0.025
Step 2: Null hypothesis, H0: μ = 100; Alternative hypothesis, H1: μ ≠ 100. -1.96 100 +1.96
Step 3: Level of significance, α = 0.05
Step 4:
Step 5: Critical region (CR)
Tabularized relations between truth/falseness of the null hypothesis and outcomes of the test-
Type I and type II errors are part of the process of hypothesis testing. Although the errors cannot
be completely eliminated, we can minimize one type of error. Typically when we try to decrease the
probability one type of error, the probability for the other type increases. We could decrease the
value of alpha from 0.05 to 0.01, corresponding to a 99% level of confidence. However, if everything
else remains the same, then the probability of a type II error will nearly always increase. Many
times the real world application of our hypothesis test will determine if we are more accepting of
type I or type II errors. This will then be used when we design our statistical experiment.
The tests should not be used in a mechanical fashion. It should be kept in view that testing is not
decision-making itself; the tests are only useful aids for decision-making. Hence, proper
interpretation of statistical evidence is important to intelligent decisions.
Test do not explain the reasons as to why does the difference exist, say between the means of
the two samples. They simply indicate whether the difference is due to fluctuations of sampling or
because of other reasons but the tests do not tell us as to which is/are the other reason(s) causing
the difference.
Results of significance tests are based on probabilities and as such cannot be expressed with
full certainty. When a test shows that a difference is statistically significant, then it simply
suggests that the difference is probably not due to chance.
Statistical inferences based on the significance tests cannot be said to be entirely correct
evidences concerning the truth of the hypotheses. This is specially so in case of small samples
where the probability of drawing erring inferences happens to be generally higher. For greater
reliability, the size of samples be sufficiently enlarged.
All these limitations suggest that in problems of statistical significance, the inference techniques (or the
tests) must be combined with adequate knowledge of the subject-matter along with the ability of good
judgement.
knowledge. If progress is to be made new hypotheses must fit into the framework of existing
theories and transform them into more perfect explanatory schemes. Thus, even the more
revolutionary theories are not completely different from the existing edifice of knowledge.
Suitability for Intended Purpose: Each hypothesis that offers a satisfactory explanation of what it
intends to explain is useful for that purpose. Every hypothesis serves a specific purpose and must be
adequate for the purpose it claims to serve. Thus, suitability is also the important criterion for an
effective hypothesis.
Simplicity of Explanation: If two hypotheses are capable to explain the same facts, the simpler one
is the better hypothesis. Simplicity means that the hypothesis explains the phenomena with the
least complexes theoretical structure. The hypothesis that accounts for all facts with the fewest
independent or special assumptions and complexities is always preferable.
Levels of Explanation: The value of hypothesis can best be comprehended by tracing their
relationship to facts theories and laws. The scientists build gradually a hierarchy of knowledge
consisting of (a) hypotheses (b) theories and (c) laws.
Hypotheses and Facts: A hypothesis is the first step in the direction of scientific truth. In the
hierarchy of scientific knowledge it is the lowest on the scale. If empirical evidence can be
found to verify the hypothesis, it gains the status of a fact. Thus, a fact is the verified
hypothesis.
Hypotheses and Theories: A theory may contain several logically interrelated hypotheses and
postulates may be used as a synonyms for hypotheses. Hypotheses and theories are both
conceptual in nature. A theory usually provides a higher level explanation than a hypothesis. A
theory presents a comprehensive conceptual scheme that may involve several related hypotheses
and explain diverse phenomena, considerable empirical evidences are needed to support it.
Hypotheses and Laws: Some hypotheses receive sufficient confirmation to lead to the
formulation of theories; some lead to the establishment of laws. Laws utilize highly abstract
concepts, for they provide the most comprehensive type of explanations. Laws may explain
phenomena that have been explained previously by two or three theories. A law retains its lofty
scientific status which it claims to explain.
Hence, the basic criteria for evaluating research hypotheses are – (a) stated in declarative form; (b)
consistent with known facts, prior research, or theory; (c) logical extension of the research
problem; (d) states an expected relationship between two or more variables; (e) can be tested; and
(f) is clear and concise.
References
Kabir, S.M.S. (2016). Basic Guidelines for Research: An Introductory Approach for All
Disciplines. Book Zone Publication, ISBN: 978-984-33-9565-8, Chittagong-4203,
Bangladesh.
Kabir, S.M.S. (2017). Essentials of Counseling. Abosar Prokashana Sangstha, ISBN: 978-984-
8798-22-5, Banglabazar, Dhaka-1100.
Kabir, S.M.S., Mostafa, M.R., Chowdhury, A.H., & Salim, M.A.A. (2016). Bangladesher
Samajtattwa (Sociology of Bangladesh). Protik Publisher, ISBN: 978-984-8794-69-2,
Dhaka-1100.
Kabir, S.M.S. (2018). Psychological health challenges of the hill-tracts region for climate
change in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, Elsevier,34, 74–77.
Kabir, S.M.S., Aziz, M.A., & Jahan, A.K.M.S. (2018). Women Empowerment and Governance
in Bangladesh. ANTYAJAA: Indian journal of Women and Social Change, SAGE
Publications India Pvt. Ltd, 3(1), 1-12.
Alam, S.S. & Kabir, S.M.S. (2015). Classroom Management in Secondary Level: Bangladesh
Context. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(8), 1-4, ISSN
2250-3153, www.ijsrp.org.
Alam, S.S., Kabir, S.M.S., & Aktar, R. (2015). General Observation, Cognition, Emotion,
Social, Communication, Sensory Deficiency of Autistic Children. Indian Journal of
Health and Wellbeing, 6(7), 663-666, ISSN-p-2229-5356,e-2321-3698.
Kabir, S.M.S. (2013). Positive Attitude Can Change Life. Journal of Chittagong University
Teachers’ Association, 7, 55-63.
Kabir, S.M.S. & Mahtab, N. (2013). Gender, Poverty and Governance Nexus: Challenges and
Strategies in Bangladesh. Empowerment a Journal of Women for Women, Vol. 20, 1-12.
Kabir, S.M.S. & Jahan, A.K.M.S. (2013). Household Decision Making Process of Rural Women
in Bangladesh. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), ISSN:
2279-0845,Vol,10, Issue 6 (May. - Jun. 2013), 69-78. ISSN (Online): 2279-0837.
Jahan, A.K.M.S., Mannan, S.M., & Kabir, S.M.S. (2013). Designing a Plan for Resource
Sharing among the Selected Special Libraries in Bangladesh, International Journal of
Library Science and Research (IJLSR), ISSN 2250-2351, Vol. 3, Issue 3, Aug 2013, 1-20,
ISSN: 2321-0079.
Kabir, S.M.S. & Jahan, I. (2009). Anxiety Level between Mothers of Premature Born Babies
and Those of Normal Born Babies. The Chittagong University Journal of Biological
Science, 4(1&2), 131-140.
Kabir, S.M.S., Amanullah, A.S.M., & Karim, S.F. (2008). Self-esteem and Life Satisfaction of
Public and Private Bank Managers. The Dhaka University Journal of Psychology, 32, 9-
20.
Kabir, S.M.S., Amanullah, A.S.M., Karim, S.F., & Shafiqul, I. (2008). Mental Health and Self-
esteem: Public Vs. Private University Students in Bangladesh. Journal of Business and
Technology, 3, 96-108.
Kabir, S.M.S., Shahid, S.F.B., & Karim, S.F. (2007). Personality between Housewives and
Working Women in Bangladesh. The Dhaka University Journal of Psychology, 31, 73-
84.
Kabir, S.M.S. & Karim, S.F. (2005). Influence of Type of Bank and Sex on Self-esteem, Life
Satisfaction and Job Satisfaction. The Dhaka University Journal of Psychology, 29, 41-
52.
Kabir, S.M.S. & Rashid, U.K. (2017). Interpersonal Values, Inferiority Complex, and
Psychological Well-Being of Teenage Students. Jagannath University Journal of Life and
Earth Sciences, 3(1&2),127-135.
--------------------------