Excerpts

Regarding educational subjects, the field of teacher training shows a positive coefficient of 0.80, with marginal significance ( p = 0.05).

One-factorial ANOVAs for the factor session for the patients and controls separately with target locations either PRL or OppPRL indicated a marginally significant quadratic trend (blue line in Figure 7 , upper right panel) for the control group [ F (1,9) = 5.05; p = 0.05, not corrected for multiple comparisons; otherwise p = 0.1, Bonferroni corrected].

Unsolicited Play In regard to unsolicited activity by a peer, an increase in Group Play was marginally significant [ F (2,73) = 3.83, p = 0.05].

The interaction was borderline significant, F (4,84) = 2.43, p = 0.05.

ngagement Strategies pathway (β = 0.224, p < 0.001); Hypothesis H5 demonstrated robust support, revealing the strongest direct effect where Psychological Resilience significantly enhanced Cognitive Engagement Strategies (β = 0.366, p < 0.001); Finally, Hypothesis H6 was partially supported, showing marginally significant positive influence of Psychological Resilience on Academic Motivation (β = 0.149, p < 0.05).

Levels of child distress reported for child 3 were lower at post-session than at pre-session at a level that was nearly significant ( T = −1.00, SD = 0.51, z = −1.96, p = 0.050); a similar pattern was not observed for child 4 ( T = −0.22, SD = 0.51, z = −0.44, p = 0.663).

The intervention period of less than 6 weeks improved the response time to a certain extent, showing a marginally significant effect (SMD = −0.68, p = 0.05), while the intervention period exceeding 6 weeks did not make the response time reach statistical significance (SMD = −1.03, p > 0.07).

There was a marginally significant tendency for congruence [ F (1, 61) = 4.011, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.062, BF 10 = 1.129].

A marginally non-significant effect of TMS was also found ( P = 0.05, cluster-corrected).

There was a marginally significant PoA × VOT interaction in medial aspects of the left AC, but only when the extent threshold was reduced to an uncorrected cluster size of p < 0.05, while keeping the peak threshold at p < 0.001.

Specifically, as exhibited in Figure 2 , the analyses of the three-way conditional effect ( B = 0.16; p < 0.05) showed that the interaction between role ambiguity and transformational leadership regarding job satisfaction was significant among respondents holding a position as a supervisor/manager ( B = 0.23; p < 0.001), but only borderline significant among respondents not holding a supervisor/manager position ( B = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05).

Of the 506 inter-listener correlations, only 12 failed to reach significance at p = 0.05 level, and most were significant p < 0.001.

Here, a main effect for politeness, F (1,297) = 5.65, p = 0.02, η p 2 = 0.02 [and a marginally significant effect for compassion, F (1,297) = 4.03, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.01] emerged, suggesting that politeness was related to greater allocations across all conditions (see Supplementary Tables S3 – S5 in the Supplementary Material).

The difference approached significance for inhibition time and errors on the NEPSY-II, t (74) = 2.00, p = 0.05 and t (74) = 1.96, p = 0.05 (see Table 3 ).

Low anxiety was related to a marginally significant effect of emotion, with poorer performance (that means, i.e., enhanced suppression) for negative compared to neutral scenes, p = 0.05.

Again, males have a worst perception (M = 63.66, SD = 27.73) than females (M = 67.95, SD = 26.16), although the difference is barely significant ( t = −1.59, df = 646, p = 0.05, d = 0.12).

Results *Note: Statistical significance is denoted consistently throughout the manuscript as follows: + p < 0.1 (marginally significant), * p < 0.05 , ** p < 0.01 , ** p < 0.001 .

One-way ANOVA with cluster membership as the independent variable confirmed the existence of statistically significant differences between the three groups in all dependent variables ( p < 0.05) but one, which was nevertheless borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

A significant trend was only seen at 8 years of age (χ 2 = 5.892, p = 0.05), and there were no significant differences between the three apparatus at 10 years of age (χ 2 = 2.722, p = NS).

Indeed, Kianga exhibited significantly more affiliative behaviors in the RS period, whereas a trend toward significance ( p = 0.05) was reported for Lubaya.

This difference between regions was marginally significant [χ 2 (2, 112) = 9.49, p < 0.05].

No-handicap approached significance ( p = 0.05).

Again, no other predictor reached conventional levels of significance although warmth was a marginally significant negative predictor, B = −0.62, SE = 0.32, Exp(B) = 0.54, p = 0.05.

Introducing personality dimensions in the second step of the analysis managed to increase the explained criterion variance (Δ R 2 = 0.09, p < 0.05) with extraversion as the only predictor variable with marginally significant contribution (β = 0.20, p = 0.05).

The DASS-A emerged as the only marginally significant predictor of ratings for the ambiguous danger CS D, ρ(49) = −0.27, p = 0.05.