**Explain when a z- test would be appropriate over a t-test. Due 3/5/2014Researchers routinely choose an alpha level of 0.05 for testing their hypotheses. What aresome experiments for which you might want a lower alpha level (e.g 0.01)? What are somesituations in which you might accept a higher level (e.g o.1)? Due 3/7/14**

**Research in Healthcare**

**Researchers routinely choose an alpha level of 0.05 for testing their hypotheses. What**

are some experiments for which you might want a lower alpha level (e.g 0.01)? What are

some situations in which you might accept a higher level (e.g o.1)?

The alpha level is a statistical measure of probability of error. Pagano (2012) asserts that

there are various statistical error types that researchers’ are usually subjected to when conducting

their statistical researches and that the various alpha levels are associated with the different types

and incidences of errors. For instance, the alpha level can assert the probability of stating a

positive hypothesis when the study should actually be based on a null hypothesis. In conducting

statistical analyses, two types of alpha levels are normally used and these are low alpha level and

high alpha levels (Pagano, 2012). Each alpha level is applied according to the nature and type of

statistical data that is used in conducting the study.

A low alpha level of 0.01 is used in situations where there is a low probability of Type 1

error. A Type 1 error is occasioned by the rejection of a null hypothesis which happens to be

true. A null hypothesis outlines the default position that the research has assumed and the

researcher’s role is usually to either reject or affirm the null hypothesis (Pagano, 2012). A null

hypothesis which is proved true through the research process should be affirmed while one

which returns a false result should be rejected. Jones (2002) explains that rejecting a null

hypothesis which turns out to be true might significantly interfere with the entire integrity of the

RESEARCH IN HEALTHCARE 2

study being conducted. It is therefore important that researchers conducting a research in which

the integrity of hypothesis is central to the research employ the use of low alpha of 0.01 so as to

limit the probability of a Type 1 error whose occurrence will in turn interfere with the integrity

and credibility of the entire research process (Jones, 2002). Some of the experiments in which

the alpha level should be low include:

A research conducted to establish the relationship between cholesterol levels and cardiac arrest

incidences among middle aged men.

A research conducted to establish the link between the quality of pre-natal healthcare offered to

mothers and infant mortality rates in the Sub-Saharan Countries.

As already stated, low alpha level is associated with low type 1 error. From this, it follows

that high alpha level is associated with high type 1 error (Jackson, 2008). Unlike low Alpha

Level where the integrity and credibility of the entire research process is hinged on correct

treatment of the null hypothesis, a high Alpha level can accommodate errors associated with the

treatment of a null hypothesis. This implies that rejecting a null hypothesis which later turns out

to be true might not significantly impact the integrity of the study (Jackson, 2013). Researches

that usually employ the use of high Alpha level usually are much less sensitive than researches

that usually employ the use of low Alpha level. In such researches, the researchers can actually

afford to make a fundamental mistake and get away with it. Some examples of high Alpha Level

research studies include:

A research conducted to establish the relationship between the type of music that elementary

school children listen to and their mode of dressing.

A research conducted to establish the relationship between the income status of consumers and

the nature of recreation locations they visit.

RESEARCH IN HEALTHCARE 3

References

Jackson, S (2008). Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach. New York:

Cengage Learning.

Jackson, S (2013). Statistics Plain and Simple. New York: Cengage Learning.

Jones, D (2002). Pharmaceutical Statistics. Michigan: PP Press.

Pagano, R (2012). Understanding Statistics in the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Cengage

Learning.