Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / Equal Variance Hypothesis

by Fred Schenkelberg 1 Comment

Equal Variance Hypothesis

Equal Variance Hypothesis

Hypothesis testing of paired data may include two populations that have the equal standard deviations. The t-test for differences considered in a previous post used the standard deviation of the differences. In this test, we want to consider if one population is different in some way than the other and we use the samples from each population directly.

Test Setup

The null hypothesis for a paired t-test is Ho: μ1 = μ2.

The three alternate hypothesis become:

μ1 ≥ μ2

μ1 ≤ μ2

μ1 ≠ μ2

We are considering the two population standard deviations are the same. You can use the F-test hypothesis test to check this assumption.

We calculate the test statistic using

$$ \large\displaystyle t=\frac{{{{\bar{X}}}_{1}}-{{{\bar{X}}}_{2}}}{{{s}_{p}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{{{n}_{1}}}+\frac{1}{{{n}_{2}}}}}$$

where, sp is the pooled standard deviation and calculated from the samples by

$$ \large\displaystyle {{s}_{p}}=\sqrt{\frac{\left( {{n}_{1}}-1 \right)s_{1}^{2}+\left( {{n}_{2}}-1 \right)s_{2}^{2}}{n+n-2}}$$

The degrees of freedom used to determine the critical value is df = n1 + n2 – 2.

The critical value (or rejection region) for the three tests given a (1-α)100% confidence level becomes:

Reject Ho if t > tα,df

Reject Ho if t < tα,df

Reject Ho if |t| > tα/2,df

Example

Let’s say we have two processes creating the top tubes of bicycle and we want to know if the two processes differ. The weight is important, so we measure five tubes from each process. The data follows:

Sample Process 1 Process 2
1 3.125 3.110
2 3.120 3.095
3 3.135 3.115
4 3.130 3.120
5 3.125 3.125

The means are X-bar1 = 3.127 and X-bar2 = 3.113, s1 = 0.0057 and s2 = 0.0115. The five samples from each process provides degrees-of-freedom of df = 5 + 5 – 2 = 8.

The critical value is t0.05, 8 = 2.306 given an α = 0.05 or a 95% confidence level.

The pooled standard deviation is

$$ \large\displaystyle {{s}_{p}}=\sqrt{\frac{\left( 5-1 \right)0.0057_{{}}^{2}+\left( 5-1 \right)0.01115_{{}}^{2}}{5+5-2}}=0.0091$$

test statistic is

$$ \large\displaystyle t=\frac{3.127-3.113}{0.0091\sqrt{\frac{1}{5}+\frac{1}{5}}}=2.43$$

Since 2.43 is larger than 2.306 and in the rejection region, the null hypothesis is rejected. This means there is convincing evidence the two process do not create the same weight fork tubes.


Related:

Hypothesis un-equal variance (article)

Paired-Comparison Hypothesis Tests (article)

Two Proportions Hypothesis Testing (article)

 

Filed Under: Articles, CRE Preparation Notes, Probability and Statistics for Reliability Tagged With: Hypothesis testing

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« Paired-Comparison Hypothesis Tests
Reliability Organization – Part 1 »

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.

[popup type="" link_text="Get Weekly Email Updates" link_class="button" ][display_form id=266][/popup]

  • 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

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy