When amusics were identified using the contour subtest of the MBEA, their performance in the low-pass filtered condition was still below that of controls (amusics mean = 62%, SD = 16%; controls mean = 70%, SD = 12%); however the difference was only marginally significant [ t (38) = 1.7, p = 0.09].
Excerpts
In addition, there was a marginally significant interaction between ethnic group and regulatory motivation (β = 0.54, p = 0.09, also see Table 4 ).
However, the reduction in the levels of risky online behavior was only marginally significant across the period, t (205) = 1.72, p = 0.09.
The main effect of gender was not significant, F (1, 73) = 1.87, p = 0.18, η 2 p = 0.03; however, the interaction between gender and age was marginally significant, F (3, 77) = 2.25, p = 0.09, η 2 p = 0.09.
Donation to environmental charity There was a marginally significant main effect of condition, F (3, 860) = 2.17, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.01.
The interaction effect between leadership support and team size reveals that the association between change in leadership support and work satisfaction is positive and significant for small-sized teams (effect size = 0.53, SE = 0.20, p = 0.01, CI low = 0.12; CI high = 0.93), it is positive but not significant for average-sized teams (effect size = 0.11, SE = 0.14, p = 0.47, CI low = −0.19; CI high = 0.40), and it is negative and marginally significant for large teams (effect size = −0.32, SE = 0.18, p = 0.09, CI low = −0.69; CI high 0.06; see also the slopes depicted in Figure 3 ).
Classroom organization The interaction between stress and feasibility was marginally significant in predicting observations of teachers’ classroom organization ( B = −0.41, SE = 0.24, p = 0.09).
However, perceived physical risk had a marginally significant negative direct influence on carsharing usage intention ( b 2 = −0.09, p = 0.09) thereby lending support to H5.
However, a considerable portion of the variance remained unexplained ( R 2 = 0.41), and 19% of participants (95CI: 10–28%) misreported their behaviour, t (74) = −4.12, p < 0.001, but participants' tendency to misreport safety voice acts over safety silence was only a marginal trend, OR = 2.78, Wald (1) = 2.48, p = 0.09 (bootstrap sample = 1,000).
of marginal significancep = 0.09
A medium effect, albeit of marginal significance, in favor of the UT group immediately after the training was found for two far transfer tasks: story recall, F (1,39) = 3.09, p = 0.09, MSE = 11.04, η p 2 = 0.07, and RAPM, F (1,39) = 2.73, p = 0.10, MSE = 4.27, η p 2 = 0.07 ( Figure 5 ).
The interaction between nepotism and frontier was marginally significant, F (1,312) = 2.91, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.009.
For intensity ratings, the effect of facial expression type did not reach statistical significance [although it showed a trend: F (2,42) = 2.69, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.11].
borderline non-significantp = 0.09
The differences between students in the 7th and 8th grades [ t (51) = −1.32, p = 0.09] and those in the 7th and 9th grades were borderline non-significant [ t (46) = −1.33, p = 0.09].
Within the temporal measures, a nearly significant group effect was observed in the response time (β = -309.90, p = 0.09), while no group effect was observed in the initiation time (β = -309.90, p = 0.30) and in the motion time (β = -230.80, p = 0.13).
a trend towards significancep = 0.09
The model including the three-way-interaction between years of education*sex*stimulation did not show a significant interaction ( F (12,46) = 2.12, p = 0.13), while the model including age*sex*stimulation showed a trend towards significance ( F (12,46) = 2.56, p = 0.09).
The mean reaction time in the test of visual rapid simultaneous processing was negatively correlated with the reading speed in both oral [ r = -0.29, p = 0.09, marginally significant] and silent [ r = -0.45, p = 0.001] modes, where shorter reaction time for visual rapid simultaneous processing corresponded to higher speed of reading.
Main effect of language was marginally significant, F (1, 40) = 3.03, p = 0.09, η 2 = 0.07.
For negative affect, there was no main effect of Time, F < 1, and a marginally significant Condition × Time interaction, F (1,218) = 2.93, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.01.
trending toward significancep = 0.09
Lumping patients' data together, we also found that patients' perseveration appears to be negatively correlated ( p = 0.09, trending toward significance) with their PANSS p1 + p3 scores.
However, the results reveal that this interaction reaches only marginal significance, F (1, 214) = 2.91, p = 0.090.
Further exploratory decomposition revealed a significant time by condition interaction in the 10-min duration group [ F (1,13) = 13.56, p = 0.003, η 2 = 0.51] and an interaction approaching significance in the 30-min duration group [ F (1,16) = 3.19, p = 0.09, η 2 = 0.17].
Post-hoc Tukey tests indicated the following pattern of findings in children's proportion of category-match choices: 5-year-old children made significantly more category-match choices than both 4-year-olds and 3-year-olds (both ps < 0.05), 4-year-old children also made more category-match choices than 3-year-old children but this difference was only marginally significant, p = 0.09.
The interaction between out-group mating threat and perceived infectability showed a statistical trend among men (β = 0.35, t (28) = 1.73, p = 0.09, R 2 = 0.11, adjusted R 2 = 0.01) but was not significant among women (β = −0.0, t (76) = −0.42, p = 0.67, R 2 = 0.02, adjusted R 2 = −0.02).
showed a trendp = 0.09
The combined group showed a trend of improvement on TMT-A (combined vs. control, p = 0.09) while memory group did not.
We found a (partial) correlation of −0.26, which was marginally significant ( p = 0.09), indicating that our assessment of the SZ patients' degree of exploitation may, to some extent, reflect the severity of their positive psychotic symptoms.