To test if the new method detects breast cancer less accurately than the current method (which fails to detect cancer in 15% of cases), we can set up a hypothesis test using the following steps:
Step 1: Define the Hypotheses
- Null Hypothesis (\(H_0\)): The proportion of failures in the new method is equal to or better than the current method. Mathematically, \(p \geq 0.15\).
- Alternative Hypothesis (\(H_a\)): The proportion of failures in the new method is greater than the current method. Mathematically, \(p > 0.15\).
Step 2: Collect Sample Data
From the experiment, we have:
- Sample size (\(n\)) = 80
- Number of failures in detection (\(x\)) = 8
- Sample proportion of failures (\(\hat{p}\)) = \(\frac{x}{n} = \frac{8}{80} = 0.1\)
Step 3: Determine the Test Statistic
We can use a one-proportion z-test. The test statistic \(z\) is calculated using the formula:
\[ z = \frac{\hat{p} - p_0}{\sqrt{\frac{p_0(1-p_0)}{n}}} \]
Where:
- \(\hat{p}\) = sample proportion of failures
- \(p_0\) = hypothesized population proportion (0.15)
- \(n\) = sample size
Substituting the values:
\[ z = \frac{0.1 - 0.15}{\sqrt{\frac{0.15(1-0.15)}{80}}} \]
Calculating the standard error (SE):
\[ SE = \sqrt{\frac{0.15(0.85)}{80}} = \sqrt{\frac{0.1275}{80}} = \sqrt{0.00159375} \approx 0.0399 \]
Now, substituting back into the z formula:
\[ z = \frac{0.1 - 0.15}{0.0399} = \frac{-0.05}{0.0399} \approx -1.254 \]
Step 4: Find the Critical Value and Make a Decision
Because we are testing at a 5% level of significance for a one-tailed test, we need to find the z critical value for the left tail:
The critical value for \(z\) at the 5% significance level (one-tailed) is approximately -1.645.
Step 5: Compare Test Statistic to Critical Value
- Calculated \(z \approx -1.254\)
- Critical value \(z_{crit} = -1.645\)
Since \(-1.254 > -1.645\), we do not reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion
The data does not provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the new method detects breast cancer less accurately than the current method at the 5% level of significance. Therefore, we conclude that the new method is not necessarily worse than the current method based on this sample.