Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Way of the Quality Warrior
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Fred Schenkelberg Leave a Comment

Hartley’s Test for Variance Homogeneity

Hartley’s Test for Variance Homogeneity

The Hartley test is an extension of the F distribution-based hypothesis test checking if two samples have different variances.

The F test works with two samples allowing us to compare two population variances based on the two samples. This test does not work for three or more populations. We could conduct multiple pairwise comparisons, yet the probability of an erroneous result is significant.

Bartlett’s Test and Levene’s Test are non-parametric checks for homogeneity of variances. Bartlett’s Test pretty much expects the underlying data to be normally distributed.

Levene’s Test is a better choice when you’re not sure the data is normal. Both are conservative and time-consuming to calculate.

We need another way to check for equal variances.

Hartley’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance

In 1940 and again in 1950, H. O. Hartley proposed using the F test approach comparing the largest and smallest sample variances. The test follows the form of a hypothesis test starting with the null hypothesis.

$$ \large\displaystyle {{H}_{0}}:\sigma _{1}^{2}=\sigma _{2}^{2}=\ldots =\sigma _{k}^{2}$$

There are k populations under consideration, or treatments, in the test.

The alternative hypothesis, H1, is not population variances are the same.

The test statistic and critical value

$$ \large\displaystyle {{F}_{\max }}=\frac{\sigma _{\max }^{2}}{\sigma _{\min }^{2}}$$

The test statistic is from the data, and we use a critical value to decide. Use the Fmax table to find a value corresponding to a = α and df = n – 1, where n is the sample size drawn from each population.

Assumptions and comments

  • The test works best when the number of samples drawn from each population is the same.
  • The underlying populations are normally distributed. (Very sensitive to this assumption so check)

An example

Let’s expand the example in the tutorial titled Two Samples Variance Hypothesis Test by adding a third set of measurements, say at the 3rd year of storage for the devices.

For this example, we draw seven devices and measure strength as before. We find after three years of aging. The variance is 513 psi. A little larger than the reading at two years, 400 psi, and smaller than the initial readings at 900 psi.

For Hartley’s Test, we need the maximum and minimum variances of the three samples. In this case, that is 900 psi and 300 psi, respectively.

The test statistic is

$$ \large\displaystyle F=\frac{s_{max}^{2}}{s_{min}^{2}}=\frac{{{900}^{2}}}{{{300}^{2}}}=9$$

The critical value is based on α (1 – confidence), the number of populations under consideration, and the degrees of freedom which is the number of items in each sample minus one, df = n – 1.

Note we are not using the typical F table; instead, we use the Fmax table. Using R and the package Supplementary Distributions (SuppDists) version 1.1-9.4 dated September 23, 2016, by Bob Wheeler, I calculated the Upper 5% table.

The R command is qmaxFratio(a,df,k, lower.tail=FALSE) where a is α or (1 – C), df is the degrees of freedom, and k is the number of treatments, groups, or conditions.

df \ k 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2 39.0 87.49 142.5 202.4 266.2 333.2 403.1 475.4 549.8 626.2 704.4
3 15.4 27.76 39.51 50.88 61.98 72.83 83.48 93.94 104.2 114.4 124.4
4 9.60 15.46 20.56 25.21 29.54 33.63 37.52 41.24 44.81 48.27 51.61
5 7.15 10.75 13.72 16.34 18.70 20.88 22.91 24.83 26.65 28.38 30.03
6 5.82 8.36 10.38 12.11 13.64 15.04 16.32 17.51 18.64 19.70 20.70
7 4.99 6.94 8.44 9.70 10.80 11.80 12.70 13.54 14.31 15.05 15.74
8 4.43 6.00 7.19 8.17 9.02 9.77 10.46 11.08 11.67 12.21 12.72
9 4.03 5.34 6.31 7.11 7.79 8.40 8.94 9.44 9.90 10.33 10.73
10 3.72 4.85 5.67 6.34 6.91 7.41 7.86 8.27 8.64 8.99 9.32
12 3.28 4.16 4.79 5.30 5.72 6.09 6.42 6.72 6.99 7.24 7.48
15 2.86 3.53 4.00 4.37 4.67 4.94 5.17 5.38 5.57 5.75 5.91
20 2.46 2.95 3.28 3.53 3.74 3.92 4.08 4.22 4.35 4.46 4.57
30 2.07 2.40 2.61 2.77 2.90 3.01 3.11 3.19 3.27 3.34 3.40
60 1.67 1.84 1.96 2.04 2.11 2.16 2.21 2.25 2.29 2.32 2.35

With a 95% confidence, α is 0.05. Two samples have seven samples, and one has 9. Therefore being conservative, we’ll use n = 7. Thus, df = 7 – 1 = 6. There are three treatments or conditions, making k = 3.

Enter the table with these values to find the critical value for this situation. It is 8.36.

Conclusion

Since Fmax, 9, is greater than the test statistic, 8.34, we conclude there is sufficient evidence the variances are not homogeneous, or at least one of the sample variances suggests its population variances is different than the others.

We reject the null hypothesis that all the variances are equal.

References:

David, Hartley A. “Upper 5 and 1% Points of the Maximum F-ratio.” Biometrika 39, no. 3/4 (1952): 422-424.

Hartley, Herman O. “The Maximum F-ratio As a Short-cut Test for Heterogeneity of Variance.” Biometrika 37, no. 3/4 (1950): 308-312.

Nelson, L S. “UPPER 10-PERCENT, 5-PERCENT AND 1-PERCENT POINTS OF THE MAXIMUM F-RATIO.” Journal of Quality Technology 19, no. 3 (1987): 165-167.

Wheeler, Bob (2016). SuppDists: Supplementary Distributions. R package version 1.1-9.2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=SuppDists

Filed Under: Articles, CRE Preparation Notes, Probability and Statistics for Reliability Tagged With: Critical Value, hypothesis test, Hypothesis Testing (parametric and non-parametric), Variance

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« Introduction to the 6 Sigma Design Approach
World Has Limited Resources..Is Intelligence One of Them? »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CRE Preparation Notes

Article by Fred Schenkelberg

Join Accendo

Join our members-only community for full access to exclusive eBooks, webinars, training, and more.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Get Full Site Access

Not ready to join?
Stay current on new articles, podcasts, webinars, courses and more added to the Accendo Reliability website each week.
No membership required to subscribe.

[popup type="" link_text="Get Weekly Email Updates" link_class="button" ]

[/popup]

  • CRE Preparation Notes
  • CRE Prep
  • Reliability Management
  • Probability and Statistics for Reliability
  • Reliability in Design and Development
  • Reliability Modeling and Predictions
  • Reliability Testing
  • Maintainability and Availability
  • Data Collection and Use

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy