Furthermore, all the factor loadings are highly significant ( p < 0.001), and both the coefficient alpha values (0.832–0.901) and the composite reliabilities (0.837–0.904) of all the constructs exceed the 0.70 benchmark.
Excerpts
Results and discussion A significant improvement in EWSE Following the 15-week teaching intervention, students’ overall writing self-efficacy significantly increased (M = 2.75, SD = 0.79) compared to pretest levels (M = 1.56, SD = 0.33), with a highly significant difference, t (19) = 8.32, p < 0.001.
Experiment 2 Effects of the Time Setting on the Resemblance to a Smiling Face A one-way repeated measures ANOVA with TIME (10:10/11:30/8:20) as within-subject factor and RESEMBLANCE TO A SMILING FACE as dependent variable revealed a highly significant main effect for TIME ( F 2,22 = 155.249, P < 0.001, η 2 = 0.876).
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]).
A highly significant association was observed between intention (unintentional vs. intentional) and children’s responses across all five questions ( p < 0.001) ( Figure 3 ).
Loving-kindness meditation increases connectedness to others Main effects of meditation type, chills augmentation, and chills occurrence An ANCOVA revealed Meditation Type as a highly significant predictor of connectedness to others ( Figure 1 ) following intervention ( F (1, 372) = 28.94, p < 0.001).
Senior Executive) was highly significant ( z = −5.61, p < 0.001), whereas the same pairwise comparison at three Triad talents did not reach significance ( z = 1.24, p = 0.21).
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).
The interaction effects showed that all pairwise interactions between the factors were significant: the interaction between participant group and occlusion was significant F(2,118) = 3.910, p = 0.023,η 2 p = 0.062 ; the interaction between group and emotion was marginally significant F(2,118) = 2.923, p = 0.058,η 2 p = 0.047; and the interaction between occlusion and emotion was highly significant F(4,236) = 86.601, p < 0.001,η 2 p = 0.595.
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.
Seven of the 9 differences are highly significant with p < 0.001.
Specifically, the χ 2 was highly significant (χ 2 = 829.06, df = 132, p < 0.001), and the χ 2 / df value = 6.28, which was higher than the desired value of 3.0.
There was a highly significant effect for the threshold parameter ( p < 0.001; in fact, none of the simulated values was larger than the observed value, making p effectively 0, see Figure 2 ), meaning that assuming the same threshold for the different conditions was an inadequate model of the observed data.
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.
Results Manipulation check – Level 0 Results of the manipulation check (level 0) confirmed a highly significant main effect of contours on both edginess [ F (1, 196) = 2567.11, p < 0.001, η 2 g = 0.83) and roundness [ F (1,196) = 2173.42, p < 0.001, η 2 g = 0.82] ratings.
The indicators of cooperation all show highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) ( Figure 9 ) and large effects (up value d = 1.727) in the comparison of school gardening vs. classroom.
In the repeated-measures analysis of variance of ATEC scores, the main effect of group was not significant ( p > 0.05), but the main effect of the number of measurements and the interaction were extremely significant ( p < 0.001).
Moreover, the second-step modeling revealed a clearly significant full-null model comparison (χ 2 = 185.6, df = 69, p < 0.001) indicating that cycle number and/or species (monkey or human) and/or stage (discrimination or reversal) and/or feature (color, direction, or shape) and/or any of the interactions between them or with training type significantly contributed to the response.
There was a highly significant association between expertise and gender [ χ ( 2 ) 2 = 19.01, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.154].
A 4 (Character Style) × 2 (Participant Gender) mixed-design repeated measures ANOVA revealed a highly significant main effect of character style on perceived realism, F (3, 84) = 130.72, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.78.
The F -test with true value 0 (25.24, both for individual measurements and for mean measurements) was highly significant ( p < 0.001).
In this model, the direct effect of moral context on intentionality ( b = 1.74, SE = 0.26, p < 0.001) was approximately halved, yet remained highly significant ( b = 0.85, SE = 0.22, p < 0.001).
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).
Total reading time The analysis revealed a highly significant main effect of semantic relation on the noun region, β = 99.68, SE = 6.74, t = 14.79, p < 0.001.
Chi-square analyses between group and suggestion within each social influence condition revealed a highly significant effect (χ 2 = 12.0, df = 1, p = 0.001), in the no social influence condition (thus replicating Wiseman and Greening, 2005 ) with 10 participants (33.3%) reporting that the key continued to bend if given the verbal suggestion compared to none in the no-suggestion condition.