Excerpts

Importantly, this main effect of parental role was qualified by a marginally significant interaction with parental role salience manipulation, F (1,95) = 3.04, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.031.

First, as shown in Model 1 of Table 2 , upon controlling for demographic variables, leader autonomy-oriented help was positively associated with member self-efficacy (γ = 0.30, p < 0.001), while the effect of leader dependency-oriented help on member self-efficacy was marginally significant (γ = 0.06, p = 0.08).

incongruent condition was approaching significance [ F (1, 26) = 3.3, p = 0.08, η 2 p = 0.11].

For differences in error rates, only correlation between the change in the item of “Motivation” and change in congruency effects in error rates approached the level of significance, r (15) = 0.456, p < 0.08 for VAS2–VAS3.

Although there were no statistically significant differences between users and non-users for the four scaffolding measures, the emotional-verbal comparison approached significance, F (1,102) = 3.14, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.03.

The Gender main effect was not significant ( p = 0.73), whereas the Session main effect was marginally significant, F (1,14) = 3.57, p = 0.08, MSe = 405.33: the SCR percentages tended to decrease in the second session (Ms = 58% vs. 52%).

Compared with the low-risk class, age had no significant effects on the likelihood of being in a particular cluster; while gender (female) had a marginally significant effect on predicting the membership of the moderate-risk class ( OR = 1.407, p = 0.080) and a significant effect on predicting the membership of the high-risk class ( OR = 2.485, p = 0.080).

First, there appears to be a drop again in mean density of %REC (29.4, 22.5, 22.1%), but this is only marginally significant, t (23) = 1.6, p = 0.08.

Results revealed that a group effect approached significance [ F (43) = 3.11, p = 0.08], suggesting that the PD group accumulated fewer total winnings than controls.

The one-year findings showed borderline significant findings ( p =0.08) for motilin – the hormone regulating gut activity mentioned above – and self-reported IBS pain according to scores in the standardized questionnaire (p=0.08).

This might be partially due to the BO-Condition showing large RT-differences between regular and deviant trials from Block 1 on [ F (1, 37) = 17.68, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.323] whereas the RO- Condition merely showed a trend of an increasing difference between regular and deviant trials, when comparing Block 1 with Block 6 [ F (1, 37) = 3.24, p = 0.080, η p 2 = 0.081].

Model 1: Effects of Condition by Content A binary-logistic mixed-effect model on likelihood that a child’s utterance is a question found a significant main effect of Causal Content, B = 1.83, SE = 0.47, p < 0.0001, OR = 6.26, 95% CI (2.55, 16.25), and a marginally significant interaction between Condition and Causal Content, β = −1.31, SE = 0.74, p = 0.08, OR = 0.27, 95% CI [0.06, 1.17].

The correlation between cognitive ability and interview performance fell short of significance, r = 0.17, p = 0.08.

For 1:1 mappings in the first familiarization, we found a marginally significant positive correlation ( R = 0.225, p = 0 .08, N = 60) between accuracy and confidence ratings.

The main effect of Target Position was marginally significant, F (2,76) = 2.5, p = 0.08, MSE = 0.00352, and only modulated by Version, F (2,76) = 5.2, p < 0.01, MSE = 0.00352.

Interaction effect The interaction effect was marginally significant ( p = 0.08) for lower frequencies; however, since establishing a possible interaction between context and word class was one of the central issues behind this work, we also tested the simple effects.

However, the weighted contrast comparing Muslims and Protestants together to Jews and Hindus together was marginally significant, β = 0.16, t (8054) = 1.74, p = 0.08, though the effect size was small.

Post-hoc (Tukey) tests on the change score from pre-test to post-test revealed no significant differences between the Nature ( M = −0.25, SD = 0.81) and either the Control ( M = −0.33, SD = 1.01, p = 0.80) or the Urban ( M = −0.07, SD = 0.91, p = 0.13), and the difference between Control and Urban approached significance ( p = 0.08).

A marginally non-significant difference was found between the stretching and control conditions, M = -0.18, SD = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.44], d = 0.91, t = 1.76, p = 0.08.

The main effect of stimulation was marginally significant [ F (1, 28) = 3.36, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.11].

3 This relation is nearly significant, p = 0.08, but can only have occurred by chance as the number of probes presented was independent of MW-S scores.

N2 The ANOVA for mean N2 amplitudes revealed a marginally significant four-way interactions of cue type × face type × laterality × caudality, F (16,304) = 2.83, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.14.

M sink-slower = 0.87), there was a marginally significant interaction between trial type and condition, F (4,200) = 2.08, p = 0.08, η p 2 = 0.04.

In Attriters, only a main effect of C was marginally significant at midline sites [ F (1,23) = 3.26, p = 0.08].

Finally, a marginally significant ( p < 0.08) interaction of Task Choice and ERPI/IRSI emerged, F (2,154) = 2.69, MSE = 0.00057, being due to the fact that restricted task choices went along with a smaller ER (3.5%) than unrestricted task choices (4.5%) with an ERPI/IRSI combination of 100-2,000, whereas with an ERPI/IRSI combination of 100-100 and 2,000-100, ERs were virtually the same ( p ’s < 0.36) with unrestricted and restricted choices (3.2 vs. 3.1% and 3.6 vs. 3.4%, respectively).