How are critical values in statistical tests obtained?

  • B
  • Thread starter Mayhem
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Statistical
In summary, critical values in statistical tests are obtained through various methods depending on the type of test and the distribution of the data. They can be derived from theoretical distributions (like the normal, t, chi-square, or F distributions) using statistical tables or software that provide the values corresponding to specific significance levels (alpha). Additionally, critical values can be calculated using simulation methods, such as bootstrapping, especially when dealing with complex data or non-standard distributions. Ultimately, these values help determine whether to reject the null hypothesis based on the test statistic calculated from the sample data.
  • #1
Mayhem
354
253
In science, statistics are constantly used to give 'rigorous' interpretations of data sets. In this process, tests are often employed to verify a property that is being investigated. For example, normal distribution or randomness. Usually an algorithm is employed on the data set and a test statistic is obtained and compared to a critical value. This critical value is dependent on the degrees of freedom of the dat set and confidence level used, but are almost always "strange" value that must be looked up in a table. How our test statistic compares to this value can lead to very different conclusions.

Where do these critical values come from and how can we know that they can be trusted?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There is not a hard and fast statistical proof. There is only "confidence" at a certain level. You need to start with a confidence level. Many subjects traditionally use 95% or 97.2% confidence. But some subjects, like particle physics insist on "five sigma" level, which is about 99.9999% confidence! From that point on, the translation of that, using the statistically correct degrees of freedom, leads to a direct way to interpret your parameter of interest. The final result, as a limit on that parameter, often looks like a "strange" value. But it came from the initial confidence level.
 
  • Like
Likes Agent Smith
  • #3
FactChecker said:
There is not a hard and fast statistical proof. There is only "confidence" at a certain level. You need to start with a confidence level. Many subjects traditionally use 95% or 97.2% confidence. But some subjects, like particle physics insist on "five sigma" level, which is about 99.9999% confidence! From that point on, the translation of that, using the statistically correct degrees of freedom, leads to a direct way to interpret your parameter of interest. The final result, as a limit on that parameter, often looks like a "strange" value. But it came from the initial confidence level.
I understand that it comes from a confidence level, but how are these critical values actually produced?
 
  • #4
Mayhem said:
I understand that it comes from a confidence level, but how are these critical values actually produced?
They are the inverse of the cumulative density function for the distribution in question.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #5
Dale said:
They are the inverse of the cumulative density function for the distribution in question.
Furthermore, each CDF may require different numerical methods and some use special functions that were motivated by that CDF. Often, the user relies on tables are generated and published.
 
  • Like
Likes Agent Smith and Dale
  • #6
Mayhem said:
I understand that it comes from a confidence level, but how are these critical values actually produced?
You've got some data. You assume that these data are random and from a certain distribution. This is applied mathematics so close is good enough (or better than nothing, depending). Again assuming that distribution, one may look up in a table the critical value for the confidence level you have chosen. The values in the table for that distribution were usually computed numerically i.e. with a computer.
 
  • #7
Dale said:
They are the inverse of the cumulative density function for the distribution in question.
This sounds interesting. Is it something that can be explained to a chemist who is more on the practical side of statistics?
 
  • #8
Mayhem said:
This sounds interesting. Is it something that can be explained to a chemist who is more on the practical side of statistics?
Are you familiar with what a probability density function is?

The cumulative density function is just the integral of the probability density function. Once you calculate that integral, then you just use it to fill a table. Inverting the cumulative density function is then just a matter of looking up a value in the table backwards.
 
  • Like
Likes Agent Smith and Mayhem
  • #9
@Dale I know what a cumulative frequency is:
Test scoreFrequencyCumulative frequency
0 to 2022
20 to 401012
40 - 604052
60 - 801062
80 - 100567

With the frequencies and the range (max - min) we can build a probability density function (my data looks like is a normal distribution). Is this also called a probability density function (pdf)? We then use it to construct a cumulative density function (cdf). With the cdf and z scores we can construct a table, which we can use to find the % of data points below a certain z score. Correct? 🤔
 
  • #10
I suspect your strategy of asking PF to write you a statistics textbook one paragraph at a time will be inefficient and you will be better off working through such a text.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
3K
Back
Top