Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • About
    • Adam Bahret
    • Alex Williams
    • Andre Kleyner
    • Anne Meixner
    • Arthur Hart
    • Ash Norton
    • Carl Carlson
    • Chris Jackson
    • Chris Stapelmann
    • Dennis Craggs
    • Dev Raheja
    • Doug Lehr
    • Doug Plucknette
    • Fred Schenkelberg
    • George Williams
    • Gina Tabasso
    • Greg Hutchins
    • James Kovacevic
    • James Reyes-Picknell
    • Joe Anderson
    • John Paschkewitz
    • Katie Switzer
    • Kevin Stewart
    • Kirk Gray
    • Les Warrington
    • Mike Konrad
    • Mike Sondalini
    • Nancy Regan
    • Perry Parendo
    • Philip Sage
    • Ray Harkins
    • Rob Allen
    • Robert (Bob) J. Latino
    • Robert Kalwarowsky
    • Ryan Chan
    • Shane Turcott
    • Steven Wachs
    • Tim Rodgers
    • Usman Mustafa Syed
  • Reliability.fm
    • Dare to Know
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Masterminds in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Plant Maintenance
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The RCA
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside FMEA
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
      • Reliability Reflections
  • eBooks
    • Reliability Engineering Management DRAFT
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Groups
    • Reliability Integration
    • Mastermind
    • Study Groups
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Online Course
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • 5-day Reliability Green Belt ® Live Course
    • 5-day Reliability Black Belt ® Live Course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
Don’t show this message again.

Cookies

This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.

by Fred Schenkelberg Leave a Comment

Single Sample Z-test Hypothesis Testing for Mean with Known Variance

Single Sample Z-test Hypothesis Testing for Mean with Known Variance

Single Sample Z-test Hypothesis Testing for Mean with Known Variance

In the situation where you have a sample and would like to know if the population represented by the sample has a mean different than some specification, then this is the test for you. Oh, you also know, which is actually rather rare in practice, the actual variance of the population you drew the sample.

This test is often the first in the textbook that describes hypothesis testing. It is straight forward and provides a good foundation to apply other hypotheses tests with different circumstances.

Assumptions

A good practice when applying any statistical application is to consider the related assumptions. For this test there are two assumptions involved:

The sample is randomly selected from the population under investigation
The population distribution is a normal distribution. Note as the sample size goes up this becomes less on a concern due to the central limit theorem.
If either assumption is not true the results of the z-test statistic may not be informative.

Test Setup

The null hypothesis for the z-test is

$$ H_{0}:\mu=\mu_{0} $$

where $-\mu_{0} -$ is specified

Next specify the alternative hypothesis. There are three choices depending if you want to check if the mean has changed from an expected value either higher or lower (two-sided). Or, if the test is to detect a shift higher or lower (one-sided)

The alternative hypothesis for a z-test may be

$$ H_{a}:\:\mu\neq\mu_{0} $$

$$ H_{a}:\:\mu>\mu_{0} $$

$$ H_{a}:\:\mu<\mu_{0} $$

The test statistic is the calculated number of z values the sample mean $- \bar{y} -$ indicates the population has shifted. The test statistic is

$$ z=\frac{\bar{y}-\mu_{0}}{\sigma_{\bar{y}}} $$

Recall that

$$ \sigma_{\bar{y}}=\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{n}} $$

Since we know the population standard deviation we can calculate the test statistic with the given standard deviation and the sample size, n, as so

$$ z=\frac{\bar{y}-\mu_{0}}{{\sigma}/{\sqrt{n}}} $$

The last step for the setup is to determine the rejection region. This is the value of z that indicates the alternative hypothesis has sufficient evidence to suggest the population mean value has indeed changed.

To do this we need to specify the value $-\alpha -$ which corresponds to the risk we are willing to take that the sample indicates a shift of the mean when in fact is has not changed. We call this a Type 1 error. If we are willing to accept the risk of 1 in 40 times a random sample will result in a sample mean falling in the rejection region, we would establish $-\alpha=\dfrac{1}{40}=0.025 -$, for example.

We determine the critical value of $-r_{\alpha}-$ corresponding to rejection region or area corresponding to the probability of a type 1 error occurring using the area under the tail of a normal distribution we can determine the critical value thus defining the rejection region.

For a two-tailed test we divided the probability of a type 1 error by two as the rejection region is divided equally between the two tails of the distribution.

Sometimes we approach setting the probability of a type 1 error by setting a confidence. This is the probability stated as a percentage that the sample would not lead to a type 1 error. The relationship is

$$ C=\left(1-\alpha\right)100\% $$

Example

Let’s say we have a long standing process creating the top tube for a bicycle and we want to know if a change in the process has indeed lowered the mean weight. We know the standard deviation has not changed based on prior work and is 0.0057. We start by setting up the hypothesis test.

The null hypothesis is that the process results in the same mean value, $-\mu-$ of the former process of 3.127, $-\mu_{0}-$.

$$H_{0}:\mu=\mu_{0}=3.127 $$

The alternative hypothesis is the new process results in a lower mean value.

$$H_{a}:\:\mu<\mu_{0} $$

$$H_{a}:\:\mu<3.127 $$

The test statistic is calculated based on the data collected in a sample of readings. The data is in the following table.

Sample New Process
1 3.110
2 3.095
3 3.115
4 3.120
5 3.125

The mean of the new process sample values, $-\bar{y}-$ is 3.113. Therefore, we can calculate the test statistic, z.

$$z=\frac{\bar{y}-\mu_{0}}{{\sigma}/{\sqrt{n}}} =\frac{3.113-3.127}{{0.0057}/{\sqrt{5}}}=-5.49 $$

Given the desire for a confidence value of 95% or an $-\alpha=0.025-$ we can determine the critical value from the rejection region corresponding to the probability of a type 1 error under the lower tail of a normal distribution. In this case, $-r_{0.05}=-1.96-$ keeping in mind the normal curve is symmetrical and we are interesting in the lower tail region.

Thus, since the sample mean results in a z value of -5.49 which is well below the critical z value of -1.96, we can conclude the test provides evidence that the top tube process change results in a lower weight with a 95% confidence.

Filed Under: Articles, CRE Preparation Notes, Probability and Statistics for Reliability

« Cool new Reliability Culture book launch site
What is Inherent Reliability? »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CRE Preparation Notes

Article by Fred Schenkelberg

Join Accendo

Join our members-only community for full access to exclusive eBooks, webinars, training, and more. It’s free and only takes a minute.

Get Full Site Access

Not ready to join?
Stay current on new articles, podcasts, webinars, courses and more added to the Accendo Reliability website each week.
No membership required to subscribe.

Get Weekly Email Updates


Subscribe to Weekly Updates

Get updates on the latest content added to the site, including: articles, podcasts, webinars, live events and assorted other reliability engineering professional development materials.






We care about your privacy and will not share, leak, loan or sell your personal information. View our privacy policy.


  • CRE Preparation Notes
  • CRE Prep
  • Reliability Management
  • Probability and Statistics for Reliability
  • Reliability in Design and Development
  • Reliability Modeling and Predictions
  • Reliability Testing
  • Maintainability and Availability
  • Data Collection and Use

© 2021 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy