Error of first kind

To reject the null hypothesis erroneously although it is true (error of first kind, false-negative, risk a). 

Rejected Error of first kind producer risk false alarm Test result OK... 

Error, 4,5,6,7 Error of first kind, 14 Error of second kind, 14 Error, Measurement of, 7,8 Evolutionary operation, 64 Experimental designs, 48—63 central composite designs, 52,53,54... 

Definitions On Error of First Kind Based the Limit of Detection (Nachwelsgrenze) =4.24 Og a =0.0014 Critical Level -2.33ag a =0.05... 

The risk a corresponds to the error ofthe first kind, that is, the null hypothesis is rejected, although it is true. The risk, however, cannot be chosen arbitrarily because of the error of the second kind (the null hypothesis being accepted although it is false), which then would considerably increase (see Table 2.9). 

N number of. .. /. /q(v) X values of Student s distribution (quantiles) error probability (risk of first kind)... 

If an analytical test results in a lower value x, < x0, then the customer may reject the product as to be defective. Due to the variation in the results of analyses and their evaluation by means of statistical tests, however, a product of good quality may be rejected or a defective product may be approved according to the facts shown in Table 4.2 (see Sect. 4.3.1). Therefore, manufacturer and customer have to agree upon statistical limits (critical values) which minimize false-negative decisions (errors of the first kind which characterize the manufacturer risk) and false-positive decisions (errors of the second kind which represent the customer risk) as well as test expenditure. In principle, analytical precision and statistical security can be increased almost to an unlimited extent but this would be reflected by high costs for both manufacturers and customers. 

A detailed derivation can be found in Bauer et al. [1991b]. The limit of detection according to Eq. (6.116a) corresponds to Kaiser s so-called 3a criterion see Sect. 7.5., Lorber and Kowalski [1988] as well as Faber and Kowalski [1997b] take into account errors of the first and second kind. The multivariate detection limits are estimated then in analogy to the univariate limits being twice the 3a-limit (with ua = up) see Sect. 7.5 and Ehrlich and Danzer [2006]). 

As can be seen from the distribution function B in Fig. 7.8, an analytical value Xacv produces only in 50% of all cases signals y > yc. Whereas the error of the first kind (classifying a blank erroneously as real measurement value) by the choice of k = 2... 3 can be aimed at a 0.05, the error of the second kind (classifying a real measured value erroneously as blank) amounts /) 0.5. Therefore, this analytical value -which sometimes, promoted by the early publications of Kaiser [1965, 1966], plays a certain role in analytical detection - do not have any significance as a reporting limit in case of y < yc, when no relevant signal have been found. For this purpose, the limit of detection, Xio, has to be used. 

Equations of the first kind are very sensitive to solution errors so that they present severe numerical problems. Volterra equations are similar to initial value problems. 

But where have these attitudes come from and what is their justification Why should there be strong and pervasive concern among scientists about errora of the first kind (false-positive deciaiona) while little concern and only perfunctory thought ia given to errors of the second kind ... 

To justify the selection of overwhelming odds against the null hypothesis many will also argue that a lax standard for errors of the first kind would promote inefficiency in research and would therefore be detrimental to the scientific enterprise as a whole. This argument is behind the often-heard assertion that scientists need to be certain about the positive results they accept because they are used to construct new hypotheses and theories and will be incorporated into the body of assumed scientific knowledge. (37.38)... 

The argument sounds impressive. But all scientific theories and knowledge are temporary and incomplete descriptions of physical reality they are forever subject to change. Thus, it is at least arguable and perhaps impossible to substantiate whether science stands to advance more efficiently by being overly cautious about errors of the first kind and essentially indifferent to those of the second. 

Whatever the true merits of the reasons and the justifications for the conservative attitudes of most scientists, it is true that one seldom hears arguments for avoiding errors of the second kind, especially for small differences between means(d). It appears instead that there is a convention in the life science-related disciplines which automatically sets at 0.05 the maximum acceptable value for errors of the first kind without critical consideration of all that that might entail. 

For example, if two means are being compared, and we want to limit the error of the first kind to a= 0 05, and we have 15 degrees of freedom in the data. 

Error of the first kind (aerror or type I error) the probability of rejecting a true hypothesis. 

For it is unknown to nearly everybody how cuprum, aes, electrum and orichalcum, called by error aurichalcum, should be properly called. It is thought by nearly all that these are different kinds of metals, though this is not true. For aes, and orichalcum and electrum are made from copper (cuprum). The metal that is first smelted and purified from earthly impurities is really copper and so it should be called. But although into copper, melted and purified, powdered yellow calamina is sprinkled, yet it does not contain much of the powder, hut as the copper is made a little harder and more yellow it is then called aes. Calamina is a certain vein of earth and is of many kinds hut I refer here to the yellow. If considerably more of this powder is... 

---