# Commenting on Type 1 Error rates [closed]

After plotting the CDF of the probabilities of type 1 error for a test at alpha=0.05 and n=15 i am getting the given plot. It it ok to say "there is evidence that the Type I error rate of the test has poor control in small sample settings"?

## closed as unclear what you're asking by whuber♦Oct 11 at 16:36

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Because "poor control" is unspecific, it's essentially meaningless. Could you elaborate on what you intend that to mean? – whuber Oct 11 at 16:35
• I just want to comment on the low type 1 error rate for the test. Should i rather say "the test is under rejecting" – Show Oct 11 at 18:07
• That's evidently the case for $n=15.$ Because you don't describe the test, we have no information to draw conclusions about any other $n.$ – whuber Oct 11 at 18:08
• Type I error rates for larger sample sizes are closer to the true nominal alpha-level of 0.05. For example n = 30, the estimated Type I error rate is 0.047807, For n = 50 the estimated Type I error rate is 0.050416 and For n = 150 the estimated Type I error rate is 0.04958. – Show Oct 11 at 18:20