= Solution
The <ordinary least squares> fit estimates the conditional <mean> of the continuous safety response as a <linear function> of the income coding:
$$
\boxed{\widehat{\mathrm{feelsafe}}=6.5933+0.2369\,\mathrm{income}.}
$$
The <regression coefficient> for income is positive. Since larger response values <mean> greater safety, one additional coded income unit corresponds to an estimated increase of $0.2369$ safety-scale units in the fitted <mean>. Following the question's stated units, a unit is a £10,000 income step. The observed coding also uses income bands with open end categories, so this is a linear trend per coded band step; it is not evidence of a known constant effect for every extra pound, especially within the open top band. The output's abbreviated variable label does not override the stated units.
The <intercept> is the fitted <mean> at income code zero. It is estimated as $6.5933$, but zero is outside the observed income codes, so that value is an extrapolated model baseline, not an observed estimate for a particular income category. Its small <p-value> tests a zero intercept; it is not the main test of the income association.
For the income coefficient, the <standard error> is $0.0604$. The reported <test statistic> and <two-sided test> give
$$
t\simeq3.922,\qquad p=9.13\times10^{-5},
$$
providing strong evidence against the <null hypothesis> of zero linear slope under the stated model assumptions. A $95\%$ <Student t confidence interval>, using $1727$ residual <statistical degrees of freedom>, is
$$
\boxed{0.2369\pm t_{1727,0.975}(0.0604)\simeq[0.1184,\,0.3554].}
$$
This is an interval for the population linear coefficient under the model, not an interval containing $95\%$ of individual safety scores. The large-sample estimate is precise enough to detect a positive association, but that does not establish substantial individual predictive power.
The <coefficient of determination> is $R^2=0.008828$: the fitted line accounts for about $0.883\%$ of the in-sample variation about the response <sample mean>. The <adjusted coefficient of determination> is about $0.825\%$. Thus \b[income alone explains very little of the observed variation], despite the small slope <p-value>. The <residual standard error> of $3.997$ response units describes substantial scatter about the fitted line. This is an estimated residual <standard deviation>, rather than the <standard error> of the slope or a complete individual prediction interval.
The overall <F-test> has $F=15.38$ on $1,1727$ <statistical degrees of freedom> and $p=9.129\times10^{-5}$. With one predictor and an <intercept>, it tests the same zero-slope hypothesis as the coefficient <Student's t-test>; $F=t^2$, up to rounding. It is not an additional independent confirmation. In this <simple linear regression>, the <Pearson correlation coefficient> has the slope's sign and magnitude $\sqrt{R^2}\simeq0.0940$, another description of the weak linear association.
The regression uses $1729$ complete observations and estimates two coefficients, giving $1729-2=1727$ residual <statistical degrees of freedom>. The deletion of $88$ observations is <complete-case analysis>; extending its conclusions to the full target population requires suitable assumptions about the <missing-data mechanism>. Classical reported <standard errors> also rely on an adequate linear conditional <mean>, independent errors and <homoscedasticity>; a <normal linear model> gives the finite-sample <Student t-distribution> and <F-test> calibration, while large-sample approximations can justify similar tests under weaker distributional assumptions. The printed summary alone does not establish these assumptions. <Regression diagnostics> and, where appropriate, <heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors> address different parts of that assessment.
Finally, this unadjusted <observational study> estimates an association. Other <covariates>, such as age or experience status, may be related to both income and reported safety. Without additional design or <causal identification> assumptions, the positive fitted slope does not establish that increasing income would cause an increase in safety.
Back to article page
