Excerpts

However, although approaching significance, there was no significant effect of PBF on percent VO 2 max at crossover point during the SGET ( P = 0.053).

The correlations between performance in both types of tasks and compensatory strategies were significantly negative for “repeat self-instructions” and “instructional comprehension” (see Table 4 ), meanwhile they were marginally significant between performance in “vigilance” and “instructor verbalizations” ( r = −0.29, p = 0.053).

Planned comparisons indicated that the difference in P e amplitude between errors and correct responses at Fcz was marginally significant in adults, F (1,46) = 3.94, p = 0.053, older children, F (1,46) = 3.06, p = 0.087, and younger children, F (1,46) = 3.25, p = 0.078 groups, but not in the medium children group, p > 0.1.

However, this effect did not reach significance, z = 1.61, p = 0.16 (this effect almost reached significance, p = 0.053, when not controlling for alpha error cumulation).

The distribution of AU 17 was marginally significant across platforms/versions, H (5) = 10.932, p = 0.053.

While the difference between 8- and 10-year-olds is not significant (β = 2.167, SE = 1.571, t = 1.416, p = 0.177), the difference between 10-year-olds and adults shows a strong trend of increase (β = 3.250, SE = 1.592, t = 2.041, p = 0.053).

The main effect of ethical information was qualified by a marginally significant interaction, F (2, 82) = 3.05, p = 0.053, partial η 2 = 0.07.

We also found that for patients with high- K fitness strategies and lower romantic satisfaction, even if they reported less activated behavior in recovery and treatment process, the moderation effect has decreased, becoming almost insignificant (with 1 unit increase in SD, B = 0.07, z = 1.93, and p = 0.053).

In The Bachelor shows, the main effect of cultural region exhibited only marginal significance, F (3, 97) = 2.66, p = 0.053, η 2 = 0.08.

For Conscientiousness, the direct effect on attitudes toward climate change was found to be marginally significant, b = 0.088, SE = 0.045, z = 1.939, p = 0.053, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.00096 to 0.1770.

Results In total, 1 year after the mindset induction, students originally assigned at random to the Develop condition reported on average greater intentions to use cultivation strategies when their passion was low ( M = 27.61, SD = 3.75), compared to those in the Fit condition—a marginally significant effect ( M = 25.57, SD = 4.74), b = 2.04, [0.02, 4.11], t (68) = 1.97, p = 0.053, Cohen’s d = 0.48.

A total of 91% of patients without comorbid disorders were in remission at follow-up compared to 58.3% for patients with comorbidity (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.12), and the difference in Y-BOCS (Comorbidity: M = 11.45, SD = 7.03, No-Comorbidity: M = 7.74, SD = 4.83) was nearly significant, t (33) = 2.01, p = 0.053.

The main effect of salience was marginally significant, Estimates = −0.131, β = −0.150, t = −1.94, p = 0.053, Cohen’s d = −1.942.

The results are shown in Table 7 , the difference between G0 and G2 is marginally significant ( p = 0.053), and the difference between G0 and the other two layout methods, G1 and G3, is not significant ( p > 0.05); the difference between G1 and G2 Significant ( p = 0.037), the difference between G1 and G3 was not significant ( p = 0.101); the difference between G2 and G3 was not significant ( p = 0.653).

For RT, the results showed that the main effect of familiarity between the familiar condition and the novel condition [ F (1,34) = 17.30, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.37] was significant, and the main effect of appropriateness between the appropriate condition and the inappropriate condition was marginally significant [ F (1,34) = 4.02, p = 0.053, η p 2 = 0.11].

In the analysis of d-primes in the GNAT, we observed a main effect of name close to significance [ F (1, 8) = 5.150, p = 0.053, ηp 2 = 0.392], with higher sensitivity to German than to Arabic names.

Results of the mixed model ANOVA indicated the main effect of vision approached significance, F (1,16) = 4.38, p = 0.053, η p 2 = 0.22, with children in the moderate group ( M = 10.33, SD = 0.33) trending toward lower error scores than those in the profound group ( M = 11.42, SD = 0.41).

A negative relationship between the avatar score and the RD scale fell short of significance ( r = -0.20, p = 0.053).

The interaction between meridian and time condition was marginally significant, F (4, 76) = 2.447, p = 0.053 ( Figure 6 ).

The BSI-18 subscale anxiety was negatively associated with age ( r = −0.188, p = 0.001), while for depression, only a negative trend emerged ( r = −0.098, p = 0.053).

nS-Heb2 also scored significantly lower in R than NR in the TCR ( p < 0.001), HVM ( p < 0.001), and B(–) ( p < 0.001), but no significant differences were shown in mVCCVC ( p = 0.317) and B(+) ( p = 0.284), and in CVC, approaching significance ( p = 0.053) with higher scores in R ( Table 3 ).

In CVC, S-Heb2 scored significantly lower ( p < 0.001) in NR than R, while nS-Heb2 approached significance ( p = 0.053), with higher accuracy in R.

The additional exploratory tests (two-tailed Wilcoxon) revealed more future-oriented MW ( z = −2.135, p = 0.033; r = 0.37), as well as marginally non-significant reduced present-oriented MW ( z = −1.939, p = 0.053; r = 0.33) during monaural beats versus sine tone ( Figure 3 ).

TVPS Visual Memory RDI scores in children with ASD (mean = 2.792) as compared to non-ASD (mean = 2.064) approached but did not reach significance ( p = 0.053, NS).

This model explains 10.9% of the variance of proportion of dwell time and is marginally significant [ F (2, 53) = 3.10, p =.053; see Table 3 ].