I want to confirm whether my interpretation makes sense, hope you can guide.
I'm testing the effect of an email intervention on an outcome (attendance rates to an event).
Main Group Observations
- Turnout rate was lower with intervention than without (Odds ratio was 0.7)
- Difference is statistically significant.
- (yes, sadly the intervention did not work out)
Subgroup of Females Observations
- Turnout rate was lower with intervention than without, but the rate was slightly higher than for females (Odds Ratio was 0.8)
- Difference is NOT statistically significant.
Can I argue that the female subgroup is more receptive to the intervention, given that it (a) has the higher rate, and (b) it has a nonsignificant difference?
Reason I'm asking: While it feels 'intuitive' - I'm not sure if there's something I'm missing out, especially when the subgroup has a smaller sample size < and whether this sample size can mess up interpretations.