Excerpts

Although the direct effect was also negative (−0.40), the indirect effect showed a borderline significance ( p = 0.05).

For AX-CPT inverse efficiency scores, the main effect of age was barely significant, t (40.10) = 2.02, p = 0.05.

Aerobic exercise (1 study) showed marginal significance (SMD = −0.43, 95% CI [−0.85, 0.00], p = 0.05).

Hearing level Speech Discrimination Score values in the ear to be implanted showed a trend of correlation with the domain “Delayed memory” ( r = 0.345, p = 0.050).

Turning to Training Mode and Monolingual/Bilingual, the Training Mode and Monolingual/Bilingual interaction, and the Training Mode × Monolingual/Bilingual × ao/av interaction were both very close to significance Training Mode × Monolingual/Bilingual, F (1, 65) = 3.91, p > 0.05, ηp 2 = 0.057; Training Mode × Monolingual/Bilingual × ao/av tests, F = 3.76, p>0.05, ηp 2 = 0.055 (critical F = 3.98).

The distribution of years of education between groups is marginally significant, X 2 (1) = 3.84, p = 0.050.

For total empathy, the main effect of group was not significant ( F = 0.87, p = 0.39), the main effect of gender was marginally significant ( F = 3.80, p = 0.05), and the group × age interaction was not significant ( F = 0.69, p = 0.42).

The results show that, except for mean fixation duration—which reached a marginally significant level ( p = 0.050)—no significant differences were found between the two proficiency groups in first fixation duration, total fixation duration, total fixation count, mean pupil diameter, or mean eyelid aperture.

While differences in Pause Duration ( t = −2.20, p = 0.029), Completeness (U = 2046, p = 0.030) and Spatial layout (U = 1904, p = 0.010) in Chinese character writing were nominally significant at the p < 0.05 level, they did not survive the multiple-testing correction. 3.3.

It must be noted, however, that the latter effect is not quite significant ( p = 0.05) and so it must be interpreted with caution.

With improvements in the education level, the degree of parental care and encouragement and the EC ( F (994) = 8.05, p < 0.01), PT ( F (994) = 6.27, p < 0.01) and FS ( F (994) = 5.50, p < 0.01) empathy items showed an increasing trend, while the degree of parental control and PD ( F (994) = 2.98, p < 0.05) showed a decreasing trend.

We initially specified a two-sided selection using p-value cutoffs driving publication bias for significant and marginally significant studies as p = 0.05 and 0.1.

The main effects of school-based involvement ( β = 0.13, p < 0.001) and parent-teacher relationship ( β = 0.26, p < 0.001) were both significant, while their interaction term was marginally significant ( β = 0.12, p = 0.05).

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.

The analysis further revealed an only marginally significant interaction between sequence length and task, F (2,96) = 3.08; p = 0.05; η G 2 < 0.01, indicating that effect of the sequence length may have been slightly more pronounced for verbal recall ( M 5 = 0.804; SD 5 = 0.111; M 6 = 0.753; SD 6 = 0.120; M 7 = 0.689; SD 7 = 0.121) than for tonal recall ( M 5 = 0.750; SD 5 = 0.164; M 6 = 0.682; SD 6 = 0.159; M 7 = 0.658; SD 7 = 0.165).

Table 4 also shows that the direct effect of social support on adjustment was only nearly significant in the medium group (β = 0.20, p < 0.05) of NLBC.

The difference in emotional involvement was at the threshold of significance after FDR correction [ t (26) = 2.08, p = 0.05, 95% CI (0.01, 2.08)].

Gender Effects on Coding Accuracy In Model c , reported in Figure 3 , the direct effect of gender on coding accuracy at T2 approaches statistical significance (B = 0.37, p = 0.05).

In contrast, exposure to organizational vision had a marginally significant negative indirect effect through CWB ( β = −0.02, p = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.00] ).

No-handicap approached significance ( p = 0.05).

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant contribution of interval type in the main effects model ( F (1, 233) = 31.34, p < 0.001); the interaction of language type and interval type significantly improved the model fit in a second-order interaction model comparison, F (1, 229) = 10.01, p = 0.002; and the third-order interaction model also showed a borderline significant improvement ( F (3, 226) = 2.70, p = 0.05).

Second, the effect of nonverbal MA (math-related negativity) approached significance, F (1, 39) = 3.94, p = 0.05, partial η 2 = 0.09.

Results indicated that no significant associations between PSS-4 scores and any of the category-specific parental descriptors of rewards or challenges, with the exception of a marginally significant Spearman correlation coefficient between parental references to safety challenges and PSS-4 scores, r = 0.158, p = 0.05.

In all, 1,608 specifications comprised more than a single study, yielding 1,363 (85%) nominally significant ( p < 0.05) negative and 9 (<1%) significant positive summary effects.

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].