http://www.tc3.edu/instruct/sbrown/stat/httails.

htm

One-Tailed or Two-Tailed Hypothesis Test?

Copyright © 2002–2011 by Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems

Summary: 

How do you know whether your H1 should contain “<” or “>” (a one-tailed test) or “≠” (a two-
tailed test)?

In class, the problem will usually be clear between testing for a “difference” (two-tailed) and
testing if something is “better”, “larger”, “not less than”, etc. (all one-tailed). But which one
should you use when you’re on your own?

In general, prefer a two-tailed test unless you have a specific reason to make a one-tailed test.

When a two-tailed test reaches a statistically significant result, you interpret in a one-tailed
manner.

Pick the Right Hypotheses

With a one-tailed test, say for μ<4.5, you’re saying that you consider “equal to 4.5” and “greater
than 4.5” the same thing, that if μ isn’t less than 4.5 then you don’t care whether it’s equal or
greater. Sometimes you really don’t care, but very often you really do. If the problem statement
is ambiguous, or if this is real life and you have to do a hypothesis test, how do you decide
whether to do a one-tailed or two-tailed test?

Testing two-tailed keeps you honest. Do a two-tailed test unless you can honestly say,
without looking at the data, that only one direction of difference matters.

For example, suppose the existing drug cures people in an average of 4.5 days, and you’re testing
a new drug. If you test for μ<4.5, you’re saying that it doesn’t matter whether the new drug takes
the same time or more time, but of course it matters very much. What you want to test is whether
the new drug is different (μ≠4.5). Then if it’s different, you can conclude whether it’s faster or
slower.

Another way to look at this whole business: a one-tailed test essentially doubles your α —
you’re much more likely to reach a conclusion with dicey data. But that means double the
risk of being wrong with a Type I error — not a good thing!

There are two main contexts in which a one-tailed test is appropriate: “(a) where there is truly
concern for the outcomes in one [direction] only and (b) where it is completely inconceivable
that the results could go in the opposite direction.” (Dubey, cited on page 132 of Kuzma and
Bohnenblust, Basic Statistics for the Health Sciences, fifth edition)
Sometimes the same situation can call for a different test, depending on your viewpoint.
Here’s an example.

Suppose you’re the county inspector of weights and measures, checking up on a dairy and its
half gallons of milk. Legally, half a gallon is 64 fluid ounces. To an inspector, “Dairylea gives
64.0 ounces in the average half gallon” and “Dairylea gives more than 64.0 ounces in the average
half gallon” are the same (legal), and you care only about whether Dairylea gives less (illegal). A
one-tailed test (<) is correct.

But now shift your perspective. You’re Dairylea management. You don’t want to short the
customers because that’s illegal, but you don’t want to give too much because that’s giving away
money. You make a two-tailed test (≠).

p < α in Two-Tailed Test: What Does it Tell You?

After a two-tailed test, if p<α then you can interpret the result as one-tailed. Suppose you
did test a new drug against H1 of μ≠4.5, and 100 people had an average recovery of 4.2 days with
s = 1.0 day. Your p-value is 0.0034, and you reject H0 and accept H1. You conclude that the
recovery time is different for the new drug.

But you can go further and say that the recovery time is less with the new drug. You do this by
combining the facts that (a) you’ve proved recovery time is different, which means it must be
either less or more, and (b) the sample x̄ was less than μo. This is legitimate because if you went
back and tested against μ<4.5 your p-value would be even smaller than 0.0034.

You can phrase your conclusion something like this, first answering the original question then
going beyond it: “At the 0.01 level of significance, mean recovery time with the new drug will
be different from 4.5 days — in fact, it will be less than 4.5 days.”