- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi,
Could anyone tell me if this is wrong because this is how I think of this confusing concept:
-------
Null hypothesis: there is no relationship between risk factor and disease state; the relationship you're trying to establish is not there.
Type I alpha error: you made a mistake to have rejected the null (error of commision)
Type II beta error: you made a mistake to have accepted the null (error of ommission)
If p < .05, you should accept the null
p = probability of commiting an alpha error; probability of being wrong to reject the null and believe there is a relationship between the risk factor and the disease
Could anyone tell me if this is wrong because this is how I think of this confusing concept:
-------
Null hypothesis: there is no relationship between risk factor and disease state; the relationship you're trying to establish is not there.
Type I alpha error: you made a mistake to have rejected the null (error of commision)
Type II beta error: you made a mistake to have accepted the null (error of ommission)
If p < .05, you should accept the null
p = probability of commiting an alpha error; probability of being wrong to reject the null and believe there is a relationship between the risk factor and the disease