There was a near-significant trend for male dogs to look at the food location more frequently than female dogs (GLMM: F 1,21 = 4.300, p = 0.051).
Excerpts
approached significancep = 0.051
Conscientiousness predicted connectedness to self ( F (1, 368) = 5.67, p = 0.018, η 2 = 0.012) and approached significance for connectedness to world/spirituality ( F (1, 368) = 3.85, p = 0.051, η 2 = 0.008).
Although the variable” perceived health status” was not retained in the final model, it demonstrated marginal significance in the initial model ( p = 0.051) with a negative regression coefficient ( β = −0.287).
approached significancep = 0.051
Interestingly, the difference for the “Alcohol-Sleep” cluster approached significance after adjustment (Estimate = −0.265, p = 0.051).
A main effect of congruency was found, F (1,57) = 102.6, MSE = 64,955, p < 0.001, a marginally significant effect was found for group, F (2,57) = 2.64, MSE = 37,202, p = 0.051, and no significant interaction effect was found, F < 1.
The results of the multinomial logistic regression analysis ( Table 2 ) revealed that teachers with: (1) entrepreneurship/business management experience ( p < 0.05), (2) innovation-entrepreneurship research experience ( p < 0.05), or (3) competition mentoring experience (marginally significant, p = 0.051), were 4.82, 4.72, and 4.70 times more likely, respectively, to belong to the “High IEE-competent group” (C1) than the “Moderate IEE-competent group” (C3).
The use of explanations had a near-significant, positive relation to infant age, D (1) = 3.82, p = 0.051.
borderline significancep = 0.051
Statistical appraisal by means of Egger’s test of regression produced a significant intercept ( β 0 = 2.34, 95% CI: 0.68–4.01, p = 0.008), suggesting funnel plot asymmetry beyond chance, and Begg’s rank correlation test revealed borderline significance (Kendall’s τ = 0.31, p = 0.051), offering supporting evidence for possible publication bias.
almost reached significancep = 0.051
Also the effect of Length almost reached significance, F (1, 18) = 4.372, p = 0.051, η 2 = 0.195, but its interaction with Phonological risk did not, p = 0.327.
approached significancep = 0.051
The analyses of the accuracy data only showed a small (1.8%) advantage of the identity condition over the same-shape substituted-letter condition that approached significance, coefficient = −0.16065, SE = 0.08215, z = 1.95, p = 0.051, whereas there were no signs of a difference between same-shape and different-shape substituted-letter conditions, | z | < 1.
There was also a main effect of TYPE in the subjects [ F 1(1, 20) = 19.23, p < 0.001] and items [ F 2(1, 39) = 28.9] analyses and an interaction between TYPE and DISTANCE that was approaching significance in the subjects [ F 1(2, 40) = 3.22, p < 0.051], but not the items [ F 2(2, 78) = 1.85, p = 0.164] analysis.
The interaction between probe type and stimulus novelty condition was marginally significant, F (1, 63) = 3.94, p = 0.051, η p 2 = 0.06, resulting from a greater PI effect in the repeated ( M = 0.07) than unique ( M = 0.03) condition.
In addition, children’s early externalizing behaviors were positively related to the intercept of using media to keep children busy (although this relationship was only marginally significant), β = 0.24, S.E. = 0.12, p = 0.051, and parent education was negatively related to the intercept of using media to calm children, β = −0.22 S.E. = 0.10, p = 0.022, as well as educational purposes, β = 0.01, S.E. = 0.10, p = 0.029.
The relationship with the patient was a nearly significant predictor of the affiliate stigma (F-ratio = 2.251; p = 0.051) ( Table 3 ).
close to significancep = 0.051
For the correct score in the open experiment the difference was close to significance, F (2, 41) = 3.20, p = 0.051.
The same model was marginally significant for gesture imitation, F (7,101) = 2.10, p = 0.051, R = 0.36, R 2 = 0.13.
Further, 3-year-old girls learned more words when they dragged the named objects ( M = 3.98, SE = 0.38) than when they simply watched the objects move without interacting with the screen ( M = 2.78, SE = 0.30), although this 1.20-word difference was only marginally significant, 95% CI [-0.003, 2.41], p = 0.051.
approached significancep = 0.051
In the analyses of error rate, only the main effect of Cue Type approached significance ( F 1 , 50 = 3.99; p = 0.051, η 2 p = 0.07), indicating that participants made slightly more errors on the arrow (4%) than on the gaze condition (3.3%).
Gender showed a marginally significant effect ( B = 0.392, p = 0.051 ), while teaching experience ( B = 0.125, p < 0.10 ) and AI usage level ( B = 0.070, p < 0.10 ) also exerted marginally significant influences on voice behavior.
The interaction between defeat/entrapment and FTT-Pos predicted 3-month SIQ at a marginally significant level after controlling for depressive symptoms ( β = 0.17, p = 0.051).
The results revealed that the main effect of time on BMI was nearly significant [ F (1,50) = 3.998, p = 0.051, η 2 p = 0.074], indicating a trend of change in BMI over time.
showed a trendp = 0.051
The interaction of time x basepower showed a trend ( F 3, 75 = 2.703, p = 0.051, η2 = 0.098), while the factor group ( F 1, 25 = 0.931, p = 0.344, η2 = 0.036) and the interaction time x mismatch did not reach significance ( F 3, 75 = 1.478, p = 0.227, η2 = 0.056).
marginally non-significantp = 0.051
The interaction between number format and CRI [ F (1,116) = 0.85, p = 0.359, ηp2 = 0.01] and between number format and education [ F (1,116) = 0.41, p = 0.526, ηp2 = 0.00] did not reach significance, while the interaction between number format and age was marginally non-significant [ F (1,116) = 3.90, p = 0.051, ηp2 = 0.03].
The aggregated data across studies indicated that the incremental beliefs were associated with higher levels of students' achievement in Asia ( k = 9, r = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.07, 0.17; p < 0.001), Oceania (Australia) ( k = 8, r = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.09, 0.34; p < 0.001), and at the limit of significance in North America ( k = 33, r = 0.10, 95% CI = −0.00, 0.19; p = 0.051) but were not significant for Europe ( k = 20, r = 0.04; 95% CI = −0.01, 0.10; p = 0.119).
After completing the 30-shot task, only a borderline significant improvement was found in session 5 ( p = 0.051), indicating a possible short-term adaptation effect.