Differences between the post-treatment and waitlist groups on PTSD symptom scales were highly significant ( p < 0.001), with moderate to large effect sizes on changes in both the frequency and severity of symptoms.
Excerpts
As expected, these analyses revealed a highly significant main effect of semantic blocking in RTs, t 1 (23) = 3.7, p = 0.001; t 2 (124) = 7.9, 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.
In accordance with H4.1 and H4.2, the correlation coefficients between state anxiety and learned trust showed a decrease over time, with a highly significant negative correlation between state anxiety and initial learned trust ( r = −0.59, p < 0.001), and a medium significant negative correlation with dynamic learned trust in the first trial ( r = −0.36, p = 0.031), and a non-significant negative correlation in the second trial ( r = −0.31, p = 0.054).
While this difference was only significant for one cohort (those with BSEs 1998–2001), if we combined the four cohorts 1995–2009, the overall gender difference is highly significant ( p = 0.001).
Table 3 shows that after controlling for these factors, the profile main effect remained highly significant for all nine subtests (all p < 0.001).
However, although these correlations were all highly significant ( p < 0.001 for each MMR subscale) they were nevertheless weak.
The interaction between the time of the evaluation and the therapeutic modality was highly significant ( t 183 = −36.974, p < 0.001, d = 0.91).
The final regression model predicting pro-ocean environmental behavior was highly significant [ F (5,1200) = 775.652, p < 0.001], explaining 76.4% of the variance ( R 2 = 0.764, Adjusted R 2 = 0.763).
For core self-evaluation, there were highly significant differences among the three profile groups ( F = 57.593, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.207).
This was confirmed by an ANOVA analysis which showed a main effect of valence ( df = 1, F = 18.05, p < 0.001), no effect of semantic category ( df = 1, F = 2.94, p > 0.1), and contrary to the other emotional parameters, a highly significant interaction between semantic valence and semantic category ( df = 1, F = 35.6, p < 0.001).
The only minor change was observed in the energy saving problem, with cued recall (Δ R 2 = 0.024, p = 0.075), verbal fluency (Δ R 2 = 0.042, p = 0.059), and knowledge/experience (Δ R 2 = 0.062, p = 0.012) all showing marginally significant or significant effects, but ideation fluency still contributing more than the sum of these effects (Δ R 2 = 0.168, p < 0.001).
The Friedman test indicated highly significant differences in valence scores across the conditions ( χ 2 (2) = 18.38, p < 0.001).
The intercept was highly significant ( F = 306.954, p < 0.001, Partial η 2 = 0.448), indicating a strong overall model fit.
Most interestingly, we found a highly significant interaction between group membership and SCC on measures of perceived cognitive abilities – CogPCA [ F (1) = 14.84, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.05], cognitive functionality on quality of life - CogQoL [ F (1) = 9.90, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.04], and cognitive difficulties referred by others – CogOTH [ F (1) = 21.95, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.03].
The adjusted mean difference was 25.0 points (95% CI [21.5, 28.5]), with a highly significant group effect, F (1, 64) = 50.12, p < 0.001, and a large effect size (partial η 2 = 0.439).
The condition effect for arousal was highly significant [ F (2,117) = 318.85, p < 0.001].
The results unambiguously support that perceived closeness reacts to the treatment manipulation: future managers feel closer to their fellow, with an average closeness equal to 3.96, than to subjects from the other school (3.09, the difference is highly significant, p < 0.001, according to paired-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test).
An ANOVA of the threshold values with age group as a between-subjects factor and keyword position and priming condition as within-subject factors demonstrated that there were highly significant effects due to age ( F 1,30 = 151.076, p < 0.001) and priming condition ( F 1,30 = 45.193, p < 0.001).
extremely significantqualified
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.
Results showed a highly significant main effect of viewing condition for laughs, F (2,34) = 12.93, p < 0.001 with a generalized eta squared, ges = 0.25.
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 KMO measure of sampling adequacy proved to be extremely good (KMO = 0.92; Hutcheson and Sofroniou, 1999 ), and Bartlett test of sphericity proved to be highly significant ( p < 0.001).
After entering both mediators (personal norm and perceived health risks) into the model, the intervention predicted perceived health risks significantly ( B = 0.20, p = 0.04, CI [0.014; 0.384]), which in turn predicted participants’ willingness to offer expired but still edible food highly significant ( B = −0.09, p < 0.001, CI [−0.119; −0.067]).
For model 3 predicting the behavioral factor II as a response, which was mainly comprised of the proportion of time tail wagging, licking the trainer’s hand or face, and the frequency of lips licking, we found a clearly significant full-null model comparison (c2 = 27.44, df = 6, p < 0.001).