by In statistics, a confidence interval (CI) is a type of estimate computed from the observed data. This gives a range of values for an unknown parameter (for example, a population mean). The interval has an associated confidence level that gives the probability with which an estimated interval will contain the true value of the parameter. The confidence level is chosen by the investigator. For a given estimation in a given sample, using a higher confidence level generates a wider (i.e., less precise) confidence interval. In general terms, a confidence interval for an unknown parameter is based on sampling the distribution of a corresponding estimator.
A confidence interval, in statistics, refers to the probability that a population parameter will fall between a set of values for a certain proportion of times.
This means that the confidence level represents the theoretical long-run frequency (i.e., the proportion) of confidence intervals that contain the true value of the unknown population parameter. In other words, 90% of confidence intervals computed at the 90% confidence level contain the parameter, 95% of confidence intervals computed at the 95% confidence level contain the parameter, 99% of confidence intervals computed at the 99% confidence level contain the parameter, etc.
The confidence level is designated before examining the data. Most commonly, a 95% confidence level is used. However, other confidence levels, such as 90% or 99%, are sometimes used.
For example, a confidence interval can be used to describe how reliable survey results are. In a poll of election voting intentions, the result might be that 40% of respondents intend to vote for a certain party. A 99% confidence interval for the proportion in the whole population having the same intention on the survey might be 30% to 50%. From the same data one may calculate a 90% confidence interval, which in this case might be 37% to 43%. A major factor determining the length of a confidence interval is the size of the sample used in the estimation procedure, for example, the number of people taking part in a survey.
Factors affecting the width of the confidence interval include the size of the sample, the confidence level, and the variability in the sample. A larger sample will tend to produce a better estimate of the population parameter, when all other factors are equal. A higher confidence level will tend to produce a broader confidence interval.
Various interpretations of a confidence interval can be given (taking the 90% confidence interval as an example in the following).
The confidence interval can be expressed in terms of samples (or repeated samples): “Were this procedure to be repeated on numerous samples, the fraction of calculated confidence intervals (which would differ for each sample) that encompass the true population parameter would tend toward 90%.”
The confidence interval can be expressed in terms of a single sample: “There is a 90% probability that the calculated confidence interval from some future experiment encompasses the true value of the population parameter.” Note this is a probability statement about the confidence interval, not the population parameter. This considers the probability associated with a confidence interval from a pre-experiment point of view, in the same context in which arguments for the random allocation of treatments to study items are made. Here the experimenter sets out the way in which they intend to calculate a confidence interval and to know, before they do the actual experiment, that the interval they will end up calculating has a particular chance of covering the true but unknown value. This is very similar to the “repeated sample” interpretation above, except that it avoids relying on considering hypothetical repeats of a sampling procedure that may not be repeatable in any meaningful sense. See Neyman construction.
The explanation of a confidence interval can amount to something like: “The confidence interval represents values for the population parameter for which the difference between the parameter and the observed estimate is not statistically significant at the 10% level”. This interpretation is common in scientific articles that use confidence intervals to validate their experiments, although overreliance on confidence intervals can cause problems as well.
The biggest misconception regarding confidence intervals is that they represent the percentage of data from a given sample that falls between the upper and lower bounds. In other words, it would be incorrect to assume that a 99% confidence interval means that 99% of the data in a random sample fall between these bounds. What it actually means is that one can be 99% certain that the range will contain the population mean.
Level of Significance
In statistical hypothesis testing, a result has statistical significance when it is very unlikely to have occurred given the null hypothesis. More precisely, a study’s defined significance level, denoted by, is the probability of the study rejecting the null hypothesis, given that the null hypothesis was assumed to be true; and the p-value of a result, is the probability of obtaining a result at least as extreme, given that the null hypothesis is true. The result is statistically significant, by the standards of the study, when The significance level for a study is chosen before data collection, and is typically set to 5% or much lower depending on the field of study.
In any experiment or observation that involves drawing a sample from a population, there is always the possibility that an observed effect would have occurred due to sampling error alone. But if the p-value of an observed effect is less than (or equal to) the significance level, an investigator may conclude that the effect reflects the characteristics of the whole population, thereby rejecting the null hypothesis.
This technique for testing the statistical significance of results was developed in the early 20th century. The term significance does not imply importance here, and the term statistical significance is not the same as research, theoretical, or practical significance. For example, the term clinical significance refers to the practical importance of a treatment effect.
Statistical significance plays a pivotal role in statistical hypothesis testing. It is used to determine whether the null hypothesis should be rejected or retained. The null hypothesis is the default assumption that nothing happened or changed. For the null hypothesis to be rejected, an observed result has to be statistically significant, i.e. the observed p-value is less than the pre-specified significance level alpha.
To determine whether a result is statistically significant, a researcher calculates a p-value, which is the probability of observing an effect of the same magnitude or more extreme given that the null hypothesis is true. The null hypothesis is rejected if the p-value is less than (or equal to) a predetermined level, alpha. alpha is also called the significance level, and is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that it is true (a type I error). It is usually set at or below 5%.
For example, when alpha is set to 5%, the conditional probability of a type I error, given that the null hypothesis is true, is 5%, and a statistically significant result is one where the observed p-value is less than (or equal to) 5%. Â When drawing data from a sample, this means that the rejection region comprises 5% of the sampling distribution. These 5% can be allocated to one side of the sampling distribution, as in a one-tailed test, or partitioned to both sides of the distribution, as in a two-tailed test, with each tail (or rejection region) containing 2.5% of the distribution.
The use of a one-tailed test is dependent on whether the research question or alternative hypothesis specifies a direction such as whether a group of objects is heavier or the performance of students on an assessment is better. A two-tailed test may still be used but it will be less powerful than a one-tailed test, because the rejection region for a one-tailed test is concentrated on one end of the null distribution and is twice the size (5% vs. 2.5%) of each rejection region for a two-tailed test. As a result, the null hypothesis can be rejected with a less extreme result if a one-tailed test was used. The one-tailed test is only more powerful than a two-tailed test if the specified direction of the alternative hypothesis is correct. If it is wrong, however, then the one-tailed test has no power.
