Excerpts

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]).

Furthermore, all the factor loadings are highly significant ( p < 0.001), and both the coefficient alpha values (0.880–0.931) and the composite reliabilities (0.882–0.926) of all the constructs exceed the 0.70 benchmark.

Seven of the 9 differences are highly significant with p < 0.001.

The results revealed highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) in overall motor ability scores and in the standard scores across all subtests between the two cohorts.

In the left hand columns of Table 3 representing the results for squeals, vocants, and growls the odds ratios show that the three protophones conformed to the first two predictions (protophones > cry in neutrality, protophones < cry in negativity) with highly significant odds ratios (ORs > 1 and p < 0.001).

When this categorical data is analyzed we find a highly significant relationship between types of studio audience and field study OAR co-occurring, χ 2 (2,306) = 27.790, p < 0.001, with a moderately strong relationship (Cramer’s V = 0.301).

The coefficient is negative and highly significant (β = −0.220, p < 0.001).

For smartphone addiction, the S–W test was non-significant ( p = 0.090), but the K–S test showed marginal significance ( p < 0.001).

The preliminary EFA showed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.967, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly significant ( χ 2 = 15520.423, df = 1,176, p < 0.001), confirming that the empirical data were exceptionally suitable for factor extraction.

The control scale Openness showed highly significant correlations with almost all other TSS scales [ Emotional instability r = 0.54 ( p < 0.001); Aggressiveness r = 0.43 ( p < 0.001); Extraversion r = −0.26 ( p < 0.05); Empathy r = −0.29 ( p < 0.05); Achievement motivation r = 0.01 ( ns ); Rigidity r = −0.37 ( p < 0.01)], indicating the need for partial correlations in order to analyze the correlations between personality dimensions and performance criteria.

The first one, comparing the performance in Quiet to the mean performance for AM and ST noise, was highly significant, F (1, 52) = 1589, p < 0.001, as was the interaction with Group, F (1, 52) = 11.95, p < 0.005.

All four polynomial terms of position were very highly significant (p < 0.001), suggesting that the percentages of hapax nouns out of all words across positions in turns develop across three points of inflection, of which the last sets the stage for a steep rise in percentages of hapax nouns toward turn-final position ( Figure 6 ).

Bartlett’s measure was also highly significant ( p < 0.001).

In addition to the significance value ( p < 0.05, *significant; p < 0.01; strong significant; p < 0.001, highly significant), the effect sizes for all ANCOVAs are given using Partial Eta Squared (ɳ 2 p ). 2.5.5.

All factor loadings were highly significant ( p < 0.001), which supports the hypothesized relationships between the constructs.

Significant reductions were observed in the RFB group ( p < 0.05) and the MT group ( p < 0.01), while the CT group showed a highly significant decrease ( p < 0.001).

There was also a highly significant interaction of Participant Sex by Congruency, F 2 (2,32) = 8.08, p = 0.001.

When applied to the active conditions ( Figures 11B and 12B ) the effect of lobe becomes highly significant, F (1,60) = 184, p < 0.001, where the frontal lobe contribution is much larger then that of the temporal lobe, but the effects of beat and rhythm condition are abolished.

MANCOVA revealed a highly significant group difference ( F 4/61 = 34.03; p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.69).

3.6 Comparative analysis of exam anxiety across related factors ( N = 1,519) The analysis of academic, health and life style variables demonstrates that several key factors are highly significant predictors of exam anxiety ( p ≤ 0.001).

As shown in Figures 1 and 2 , gender differences in perceived mathematics ability in 10th and 12th grades are highly significant ( p < 0.001).

However, ANOVA for the reaction times of the incongruent trials yielded a highly significant main effect with high effects sizes [ F (2,36) = 7.92; p = 0.001; η p 2 = 0.30].

However, the meta-analytical estimate is still highly significant, with logOR = 2.7, p < 0.001.

The striking difference between the groups (Figure 2 and Table 2 ) is the lower accuracy of high-PRVS participants, and this effect is highly significant [low-PRVS = 97.3, high-PRVS = 94.1, F (1, 26) = 16.010, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.381].

A probability of p < 0.10 was considered as marginally significant, of p < 0.05 as significant, of p < 0.01 as highly significant and of p < 0.001 as extremely significant.