1
$\begingroup$

I have the data set of the salaries of a current year and the population mean and std deviation of the previous year. I want to test if there is sufficient evidence to prove that the population mean of the current year is at least more than 5 of the previous year. How would one go about this?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Can you give summary statistics for this year and the mean and SD for last year? // This is pretty clearly an exercise from a text book. (Please consider using a self-study tag.) Some assumptions are necessary to make sense of it. In my Answer I try to show how a one-sided, one-sample z test or t test might be appropriate. $\endgroup$
    – BruceET
    Feb 20, 2022 at 18:00

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

This makes sense only if the data for this year is a random sample from the same large population for which you have $\mu_{last}$ and $\sigma_{last}$ for the previous year.

If the salary sample for this year is roughly normal, and you assume $\sigma_{cur}$ is unchanged from last year, you might use a one-sample normal test based on the statistic $Z = \frac{\bar X - (\mu_{last}+5)}{\sigma_{last}/\sqrt{n}}.$ where $\bar X$ is the average of the $n$ salaries sampled this year. Then you would reject $H_0:\mu_{cur} \le (\mu_{last} + 5)$ in favor of $H_a:\mu_{cur} > (\mu_{last} + 5)$ at the 5% level of significance if $Z > 1.645.$

If you think the standard deviation may have changed, then you should estimate $\sigma_{cur}$ by $S,$ the sample standard deviation of the $n$ observations from the current year and use a one-sample t test. The t statistic is $T = \frac{\bar X - (\mu_{last}+5)}{S/\sqrt{n}}.$

Here is an example of the appropriate one sided t test in R. Suppose $\mu_{last} = 40$ (per hour) for the employees of interest and you have the $n=400$ preliminary randomly sampled salaries from the same population of workers this year, in the vector x.

mean(x);  sd(x)
[1] 48.1549
[1] 20.29432

Then a t test in R is as shown below. You should be able to use $n = 400, \bar X = 48.1549, S = 20.2953$ to get the t statistic shown in the output. With these fictitious data the small P-value $0.001$ indicates that you can reject $H_0$ at the 5% level (also, at the 1% level, and almost at the 0.1% level).

t.test(x, mu = 45, alt="greater")

            One Sample t-test

data:  x
t = 3.1091, df = 399, p-value = 0.001005
alternative hypothesis: true mean is greater than 45
95 percent confidence interval:
 46.48196      Inf
sample estimates:
mean of x 
  48.1549 

Also, you can reject because $T > c = 1.649,$ where approximate value of $c$ can be found by looking at the bottom of a printed table of t distributions. (Often, the bottom row is for the standard normal distribution; the t distribution with 399 degrees of freedom is very nearly standard normal.) In R:

qt(.95, 399)
[1] 1.648682

The bottom line is that, with my assumptions and fictitious data, the mean salary $48.15$ for this year is large enough to reject $H_0,$ providing strong evidence that this year's salaries average above $40 + 45 = 45.$

In a mathematical sense, there is no "proof" here, so it is not appropriate to use the word "prove" in your question.


Notes: (1) I used the following R code to obtain the sample x used in the example above.

set.seed(1234)
x = rnorm(400, 48, 20)

(2) See @whuber's comment below this answer for additional issues concerning your question.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I stopped with the first sentence, because I can't find an interpretation that makes it true. What is the problem with comparing a random sample of one population to another population?? Also, given that one population is known, presumably it is finite, implicitly raising the question of applying finite-population corrections. That's what makes this question different from other questions about the t-test. Another difference is that much could be deduced about the likely distributional shape of the current population based on the previous one and that ought to be exploited. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Feb 20, 2022 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber: I suppose there have always been elementary statistics texts of sketchy quality with problems that have negative value for learning. However, perhaps owing to the recent rush to remote learning, the frequency of truly awful problems seems to have increased sharply. On this site, I sometimes try to mitigate the damage, within reasonable confines of our Q & A format. The valid points in your comment show how hard it is to know how (or whether) to begin and were to stop. $\endgroup$
    – BruceET
    Feb 20, 2022 at 20:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.