= Solution
\b[Taken at face value, the printed two-sided <p-value> rejects equality of average <political efficacy> at the 5% level, with the non-employed group scoring higher. The effect magnitude and strength of evidence cannot be reported as one coherent result because the estimates, <interval>, <test statistic> and <p-value> contradict one another.]
Let $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$ be the expected <political efficacy> scores in the two employment groups in the <target population>. The <null hypothesis> is $H_0:\mu_0-\mu_1=0$ and the two-sided <alternative hypothesis> is $H_1:\mu_0-\mu_1\ne0$. A <Welch's t-test> compares the difference of <sample means> with its <standard error>, estimating the two group <variances> separately:
$$
t=\frac{\bar y_0-\bar y_1}{\sqrt{s_0^2/n_0+s_1^2/n_1}}.
$$
The reference <Student t-distribution> has approximate, generally noninteger <statistical degrees of freedom>; it does not require equality of the two <variances>. Observations should be <independent>, with finite group <variances>; <normal distributions> give the usual small-sample rationale, while large samples permit an approximate normal <sampling distribution> under suitable conditions. A large sample cannot correct a biased sampling procedure or dependence between observations.<Two-Sample t-Test for Equal Means by National Institute of Standards and Technology>[§1.3.5.3, unequal-variance statistic and Welch–Satterthwaite degrees of freedom]{ref}
A <p-value> is a <probability> calculated \i[under the <null hypothesis> and the sampling assumptions]: for this <two-sided test> it measures the <probability> of an absolute <test statistic> at least as large as the observed one. It is not the <probability> that the <null hypothesis> is true, the <probability> that chance caused the observed difference, or a measure of the <effect size>. If the <significance level> $\alpha=0.05$ was chosen in advance, the printed $p=0.049521$ falls just below it. This would reject $H_0$ at 5%, but not at 1%. The <significance level> describes the long-run <probability> of a <type I error>, rejecting a true <null hypothesis>; a <type II error> instead fails to reject a false <null hypothesis>. <Statistical power> is the rejection <probability> under a specified <alternative hypothesis>. None of these errors for this particular realised study can be read as a <posterior probability> from $p$.
Both the printed <sample means> and the positive <confidence interval> point toward greater <political efficacy> in group 0, the non-employed group. Their magnitudes disagree. Subtracting the printed <sample means> gives $8.656650-6.322812=2.333838$ scale units. Yet the printed 95% <confidence interval> has midpoint $(0.2822355+0.6743412)/2=0.47828835$, not $2.333838$. A two-sided Welch <interval> is centred on the difference of <sample means>. This violates the <consistency identities for a two-sided t-test>; the <interval> and estimates cannot describe the same reported comparison. If the <interval> alone were trusted, it would exclude zero and indicate an increase between about $0.28$ and $0.67$ units, but that is explicitly a conditional interpretation. A 95% <confidence interval> refers to repeated-sample coverage of a fixed <statistical parameter>, not a 95% <posterior probability> for that realised <interval>.<Student's t-Test in the R documentation>[Arguments and Value: two-sided default, separate group variances, estimate, statistic, p.value and conf.int]{ref}
There are additional arithmetic warnings. The printed $t=6.1616$ at $2022.4$ <statistical degrees of freedom> gives a two-sided <p-value> about $8.67\times10^{-10}$, not $0.049521$. Thus taking the <test statistic> as authoritative would imply much stronger evidence, not merely a marginal 5% result. The employment counts sum to $2311$, but their <percentages> are $905/2311\approx39.16\%$ and $1406/2311\approx60.84\%$, not $39.27\%$ and $60.73\%$. If those counts also apply to the two <political efficacy> <sample means>, their <weighted arithmetic mean> would be about $7.237$, not the reported overall $8.348$; separate complete-case group sizes are not supplied, so that last cross-output comparison is conditional on a common sample. No uniquely corrected difference, <standard error> or <interval> follows from these contradictory fields.
The <political efficacy> summary describes a bounded observed scale from $0$ to $16$, with <median> $9$ and middle <quartiles> $7$ and $12$. The <interquartile range> is $5$; the overall <sample mean> $8.348$ being below the <median> does not, by itself, establish a particular distributional shape. These <descriptive statistics> cannot supply the missing coherent group <variances> or a standardized <effect size>. Even a corrected small <p-value> would establish an association under a <statistical model>, rather than a <causal effect> of employment. Age, other background <covariates>, <selection bias> and the quality of the <political efficacy> measurement remain relevant. \b[A defensible report gives the conditional 5% decision and direction, identifies the contradictions, and withholds a single numerical effect-and-uncertainty claim until the output is checked.]
Back to article page
