Excerpts

Although the pattern of the intercorrelations varies across countries, they all qualify as moderate or high ( Cohen, 1988 ) and highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The 3 × 3 ANOVA revealed a highly significant main effect for buildings, F (2, 99) = 19.175, p < 0.001, showing that there were overall differences in absolute elevator use between the different intervention buildings.

The final model was highly significant, F (6, 345) = 94.81, p < 0.001, and explained 62% of the total variance in teachers’ attitudes (Adjusted R 2 = 0.61).

In terms of pupillary response, the 4°C–10°C group exhibited a significant difference in pupil diameter, whereas this was marginally significant in the 10°C–4°C group (4°C–10°C: p < 0.001; 10°C–4°C: p = 0.062).

For the child-report sympathy scale , the main effect of time was highly significant, F (1.83,147.82) = 17.00, p < 0.001, ω 2 = 0.08, whereas the main effect of gender just fell short of significance, F (1,81) = 3.58, p < 0.07, ω 2 = 0.02.

Moderating effect of indecisiveness on rumination and depressive symptoms Utilizing a robust Wald test, the overall model fit was highly significant, R 2 = 0.54, χ 2 (9) = 268.46, p < 0.001.

The group difference on BDI scores was highly significant, Oneway F (1, 113) = 246.95, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.686.

Interestingly, the results showed that the relationship between mobile phone distraction and cognitive emotional pre-occupation is highly significant when attention control is low (β = 0.44, p < 0.001) but becomes weakest and insignificant when attention control is high (β = 0.05, p > 0.05).

That study yielded highly significant reductions in self-reported anxiety and stress ( p < 0.001), indicating that tapping alone can produce robust outcomes and highlighting the importance of further research into the mechanisms involved. 3.2.3.

However, using a Bonferroni correction and corresponding alpha of 0.001, lifetime history of major depressive disorder and persistent depressive disorder was the only disorders significantly correlated with misophonia severity, and the correlation with current OCD was marginally significant ( p = 0.001).

All differences were highly significant ( P < 0.001).

There were highly significant, negative correlations between in-body and out-of-body experiences ( r 49 between −0.53 and −0.64, all p < 0.001 for each condition; r 49 = −0.63, p < 0.001 across conditions).

There is a moderate, yet highly significant correlation between Raven and CRT scores (Spearman's ρ = 0.306, p < 0.001) which suggests that they may have a common source, but do not capture the same cognitive skills.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that the rating differences between the two listener groups were highly significant for AS_early, β = −3.07, SE = 0.79, z = −3.87, p < 0.001, AS_late, β = −3.81, SE = 0.68, z = −5.6, p < 0.001, FS, β = −3.45, SE = 0.69, z = −5.07, p < 0.001, and WP, β = −3.21, SE = 0.76, z = −4.22, p < 0.001, again confirming that BIL raters were less likely than ML raters to judge the bilinguals’ L1 speech as non-native.

The most substantial change was observed in the emotion regulation domain, with all items showing highly significant improvement ( p < 0.001), reflecting the AR intervention’s emphasis on emotional engagement and interactive responsiveness.

Specifically, there are extremely significant statistical differences between widowed and non-widowed elders in children’s economic support ( p < 0.001), children’s sick care ( p < 0.001), and children’s emotional support ( p < 0.001), respectively.

Overall, the regression model was highly significant [ F (1, 48) = 55.39, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.53] and yielded a significant coefficient for trial (β = 0.02, t = 7.44, p < 0.001), which indicates that the difference across the two conditions increased logarithmically over time.

With respect to the How Confident section, the seven-factor model demonstrated a statistically and practically significant improvement in model fit as compared to the five-factor model, Δχ 2 (11) = 2645.780, p < 0.001, ΔTLI = 0.041; first six-factor model (A), Δχ 2 (6) = 958.617, p < 0.001, ΔTLI = 0.013; and second six-factor model (B), Δχ 2 (6) = 1969.970, p < 0.001, ΔTLI = 0.031.

The chi-square goodness of fit test was highly significant (χ 2 = 6855.23, df = 113, p < 0.001), but this is usual in case of large samples like ours.

All factor loadings were highly significant ( p < 0.001), which supports the hypothesized relationships between the constructs.

The finding of nine correlations significant at p < 0.05 is highly significant ( p < 0.001) at a binomial test, and also the finding of four partial correlations significant at p < 0.05 is significant ( p < 0.02) at a binomial test.

Importantly, treatment remained highly significant, F (1, 40) = 14.30, p = 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.263, confirming the effectiveness of CBT beyond the influence of socio-demographic variables.

Results revealed highly significant differences across cultural groups for all three variables ( p < 0.001), confirming that cultural background not only influences students' sports participation behaviors but also meaningfully shapes their perceptions of basketball culture and their psychological adjustment processes.

Results were again highly significant, with past tense frequency (β = 15.35), regularity (β = −36.28), complexity (β = −4.65), and friends (β = −1.68; all p < 0.001) predicting indirect pathway activation ( R 2 = 0.557).

The difference of 353 ms was highly significant [ t (31) = 4.60, p < 0.001].