Excerpts

A probability of p < 0.10 was considered as marginally significant, of p < 0.05 as significant, of p < 0.01 as highly significant and of p < 0.001 as extremely significant.

A mixed-design ANOVA on the total efficacy score indicated a highly significant main effect of Time, F (1, 479) = 311.17, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.39.

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.

Specifically, it demonstrated the largest and most highly significant positive predictive effect on both Social Responsibility ( β = 0.344, p < 0.001 ) and Prosocial Behavior ( β = 0.271, p < 0.001 ).

However, the between-subject effect of CP was now clearly significant, F (1,47) = 18.74, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.28.

Bartlett’s test of sphericity is highly significant, χ 2 (45) = 4276.025, p < 0.001, suggesting that the dataset is suitable for underlying factor extraction and structure identification.

However, the adjusted returns variable revealed a highly significant difference between the groups [ F (2,81) = 8.69, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.18].

However, the magnitude of this relationship demonstrated a decreasing trend as EC increased, with effects of 0.83 ( p < 0.001) at low EC, 0.72 ( p < 0.001) at medium EC, and 0.59 ( p < 0.001) at high EC (see Table 3 ).

The inferential statistical outcomes further corroborate these descriptive findings, with the paired-samples t -test indicating a highly significant difference between the initial and final assessment points [ t (46) = 11.36, p < 0.001], accompanied by a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.66).

The first one, comparing the performance in Quiet to the mean performance for AM and ST noise, was highly significant, F (1, 52) = 1589, p < 0.001, as was the interaction with Group, F (1, 52) = 11.95, p < 0.005.

The interaction between perceived responsiveness and utilitarian motivation was highly significant (b = 0.16, SE = 0.03, t = 5.00, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.09, 0.22]).

Simple slope analysis ( Figure 3 ) showed that for patients with low resilience (−1 SD), the negative association between SPB and lifestyle was steep and highly significant (Slope = −1.60, p < 0.001).

There was a highly significant interaction between modality and lexical class, χ 1 2 = 43.97, p < 0.001.

Even when this distribution is dropped to have 10,000 randomly selected comparisons from each condition, there is still an extremely significant difference of F (1,19,999) = 1,004.58, p < 0.001.

In this study, it is found that entrepreneurs’ technological creative innovation behavior, business creative innovation behavior, and organizational performance have extremely significant positive correlation ( p < 0.001), while the standardized regression coefficient of entrepreneurial relationship acquisition behavior and organizational performance is 0.632, showing a significant positive correlation ( p < 0.05).

Differences in semantic relatedness ratings were highly significant between semantically related and unrelated pairs ( P < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons).

Follow-up ANOVAs revealed highly significant differences on all four trait EI factors: Wellbeing, F (6,450) = 10.13, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.12; Self-control, F (6,450) = 10.13, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.16; Sociability, F (6,450) = 10.76, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.13; and Emotionality, F (6,450) = 15.70, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.13.

There are two important differences between the two groups regarding the prediction model of ED: the model explains the higher ED variance in psoriasis patients (35%) when compared to healthy persons (19%), and the contribution of expressive suppression is moderately significant in healthy persons ( p < 0.05), and quite significant in psoriasis patients ( p < 0.001) ( Table 7 ).

The SQ of secondary school students showed an increasing trend (β = 0.02, SE = 0.02, P < 0.001), and the current results were consistent with the research hypothesis (II).

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 parsimonious model remained highly significant, F (6, 5230) = 477.30, p < 0.001, explaining 35.4% of variance ( R 2 = 0.354, Adjusted R 2 = 0.353).

When applied to the active conditions ( Figures 11B and 12B ) the effect of lobe becomes highly significant, F (1,60) = 184, p < 0.001, where the frontal lobe contribution is much larger then that of the temporal lobe, but the effects of beat and rhythm condition are abolished.

The term “highly significant” is often used to refer to studies with < 1 possibility in 1,000 that the results are due to chance, or p < 0.001.

The chi-square difference is 1,097,469 with 15 degrees of freedom which is highly significant ( p < 0.001).

However, although these correlations were all highly significant ( p < 0.001 for each MMR subscale) they were nevertheless weak.