Excerpts

The principle component was applied to conduct confirmatory factor analysis and the KMO was 0.913 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant ( p < 0.000).

Highly significant main effects of AOI were found [fixations: F (2,5 8 ) = 115.645, p = 0.000, viewing time: F (2,5 8 ) = 92.354, p = 0.000].

Analysis of variance revealed highly significant differences among the groups ( F = 15.89, p = 0.00).

The effect of morpheme reliability was highly significant (estimate = 1.937, SE = 0.537, z = 3.61, p = 0.000).

The difference is statistically highly significant ( t = 5.93, p < 0.000) and with respect to effect size almost large (d = 0.70).

PTSD torture Kurd conflict refugees The correlation between PTSD 16 items and 29 items with total 45 items of the HTQ section V were highly significant ( r = 0.72, p = 0.000; r = 0.87, p = 0.000; respectively).

The one-tailed multinomial probability of 140,432 pairs being located on a vector is highly significant [Bin ( n = 211,426, k = 140,432, q = 0.08) = 990(z), p = 0].

emotion elicitation film clips IAPS pictures media effects movies Negative stimuli—effects of stimulus condition and gender The ANOVA for negative stimuli suggested the stimulus condition main effect was highly significant, F (1.6,223.5) = 196.3, p < 0.000, partial η 2 = 0.589.

However, at T2, there were highly significant differences in UDVA for both eyes between the two groups (right eye: I-J = −0.254, P = 0.000, P < 0.01) (left eye: I-J = −0.242, P = 0.000, P < 0.01).

A relationship of marginal significance between emotion to gender switch costs and the RT coefficient of variability (CV; β = −260.46521, p < 0.000) was found as well, which did not survive correction, and the overall model was significant [ R 2 = 0.12, adjusted R 2 = 0.07, F (15,75) = 2.318, p = 0.004].

Interestingly, the results showed that the relationship between aversive leadership and work alienation is highly significant when PsyCap is low (β = 0.35, p = 0.00) but it becomes weakest and insignificant when PsyCap is high (β = 0.05, p > 0.05).

The hypothesis test demonstrated a highly significant relationship between awareness of consequences and attitude (H4) ( t = 8.164, p = 0).

Bartlett’s test results were also extremely significant ( p = 0.00).

Regarding evolution over time within each group, in the PA Group there were no significant differences from T0 to T1 ( p = 0.248), with an extremely significant increase in the result from T1 to T2 ( p = 0.000), and an extremely significant difference between T0 and T2 ( p = 0.000) as well.

Results indicated that whilst sex [χ 2 (1) = 1.368, p = 0.242] did not predict pose orientation, selfie type proved a highly significant predictor [χ 2 (1) = 14.061, p = 0.000].

Motivation appeared to have a highly significant negative impact on perceived effort ( β = −1.39, t = 21.03, p = 0.000) and perceived effort appeared to have a (less significant) negative impact on motivation ( β = −1.62, t = −4.69, p = 0.000).

The path coefficient is extremely strong at 0.958, with a negligible standard deviation of 0.009, resulting in a very high T statistic of 101.679, indicating a highly significant relationship ( p value = 0.00). 2.

The meta-regression analysis of the effect size confidence interval (es_ci_lower and es_ci_upper) presented a highly significant positive slope ( p = 0), meaning that the precision of the research design, boundary conditions, and the reported success level are intrinsically linked.

We also found a highly significant correlation of the general sense of coherence between T0 and T1 for the experimental group ( r = 0.885; p = 0.000).

Furthermore, there was a statistical trend for the effect of group [ F (1, 30) = 3.6; MSE = 105309.68; p = 0.0 7; η p 2 = 0.11], indicating that the BH group was faster than the PH group.

Here again, highly significant differences ( p = 0.000) and moderate effect size ( d = 0.66), although slightly higher than BS, are found.

The result is highly significant at ( U = 113457.000, p = 0.000).

Concerning the relationship between SoC and CP (hypothesis 6), the results in this study implied that a slightly significant correlation existed between students' perceived SoC and CP (β = 0.256, p < 0.0).

The between-group differences in coefficient variation are also highly significant (SS = 0.018, df = 1, MS = 0.018, F = 61.490, p = 0.000, η 2 = 0.400), whereas the within-group differences are relatively smaller (SS = 0.027, df = 94, MS = 0.000).

Trust in Vendor The hypothesis that IUES is significantly affected by trust in vendor-related hypotheses (F2 > 0.383) and is highly significant ( p < 0.000) is supported by the data.