  Automatic passenger counting (APC) in public transport has been introduced in
the 1970s and has been rapidly emerging in recent years. Still, real-world
applications continue to face events that are difficult to classify. The
induced imprecision needs to be handled as statistical noise and thus methods
have been defined to ensure that measurement errors do not exceed certain
bounds. Various recommendations for such an APC validation have been made to
establish criteria that limit the bias and the variability of the measurement
errors. In those works, the misinterpretation of non-significance in
statistical hypothesis tests for the detection of differences (e.g. Student's
t-test) proves to be prevalent, although existing methods which were developed
under the term equivalence testing in biostatistics (i.e. bioequivalence
trials, Schuirmann in J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 15(6):657-680, 1987) would be
appropriate instead. This heavily affects the calibration and validation
process of APC systems and has been the reason for unexpected results when the
sample sizes were not suitably chosen: Large sample sizes were assumed to
improve the assessment of systematic measurement errors of the devices from a
user's perspective as well as from a manufacturer's perspective, but the
regular t-test fails to achieve that. We introduce a variant of the t-test, the
revised t-test, which addresses both type I and type II errors appropriately
and allows a comprehensible transition from the long-established t-test in a
widely used industrial recommendation. This test is appealing, but still it is
susceptible to numerical instability. Finally, we analytically reformulate it
as a numerically stable equivalence test, which is thus easier to use. Our
results therefore allow to induce an equivalence test from a t-test and
increase the comparability of both tests, especially for decision makers.
