Analyses showed a group effect [ F (1,45) = 27.64, p = 0.000], as WL were higher for children with dyslexia than for children without dyslexia (Estimate = 269, SE = 51) and the morphological condition was close to significance [ F (2,33) = 3.02, p = 0.06].
( 2011 ) found a marginally significant ( p < 0.06) difference between AEE in highly active individuals (i.e., more positive AEE) and less active individuals ( d = 0.81).
These slopes showed a clear trend toward being significantly different between them ( Z = 1.48, p = 0.06).
While the Consonant-Vowel contrast on the intercept term was not significant (β = 0.05, SE = 0.19, p = 0.81), its interaction with time was marginally significant (linear time parameter: β = 0.38, SE = 0.21, p = 0.06; cubic time parameter: β = −0.40, SE = 0.21, p = 0.06).
Results for the Non-Risks items are marginally significant ( p = 0.06), showing a tendency to decrease self-risk behaviors: the mean score and standard deviation at pre-test were T0: M = 50.03, SD = 11.48, while at post-test T1: M = 44.35, SD = 10.99.
However, the interaction between the peg tapping task and participant group was approaching significance at p = 0.06.
Repeated measures ANOVA found no significant difference in performance improvement between the three participant groups during phase 2; however, the performance difference between groups was nearing significance for the peg tapping task ( p = 0.06).
The interaction role by actor effect approached significance ( p = 0.06).
For the analysis of different score of d4, d3, d2, d1 for both high- and low-level group together, it showed that there is no significant difference in d3, d2, and d1 for two groups, with marginal significance in d4, p = 0.06.
Influence of spacing in the Almost No condition was marginally significant, z = 1.9, p = 0.06, with ratings for open items being slightly higher ( M = 11.1, SE = 0.83) than for closed items ( M = 9.11, SE = 0.85).
However, subsequent paired t -tests indicated only a nearly significant difference between the dangerous and safe conditions in the congruent condition [ t (21) = 1.95, p = 0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.43] and a non-significant difference between the dangerous and safe conditions in the incongruent condition [ t (21) = 0.28, p = 0.78, Cohen’s d = 0.07].
The Lagrange multiplier test approached significance [χ 2 (49) = 65.83, p = 0.06], but the univariate chi-square test for the variance and covariance of factor 3 was significant (chi-square of 15.05, df of 1, and p < 0.001).
Moreover, the interaction of partner diagnosis and social motivation was marginally significant for autistic actors ( b = 0.02, SE = 0.01, p = 0.06).
However, for conventional affective arousal index Aff(Ar.c) , the session × group interaction was marginally significant ( F (1, 36) = 3.77, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.10).
These difference was significant ( p = 0.008) or marginally significant ( p = 0.06) in the experiment 2, which meant the interference of inter-character spaces and non-word spaces was appeared on the familiar format.
The TD group outperformed the MD group at a marginally significant level ( p = 0.06), and the RD versus MD contrast was not significant ( p = 0.39).
Condition was a marginally significant trend, B = 0.78, SE = 0.41, Wald χ 2 (1) = 3.72, p = 0.06.
The omnibus ANOVA analysis of the embodiment main effect revealed a not quite significant ( p < 0.06) effect in the data F (1, 54) = 3.87, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.07, such that participants tended to perseverate at the SAR task for a longer duration with a physical coach ( M = 936.28 s, SE = 117.86 s) compared to a live-video coach ( M = 699.94 s, SE = 89.87 s).
Scores on the SCPBI-Y (pain burden) approached significance ( p = 0.06).
For game 1 (n-shaped), greater anticipatory SCR was associated (an almost significant correlation) with improved performance, OR (odds ratio) = 0.03, p = 0.06, R 2 = 0.001.
The 2 (hazard: low, high) × 2 (congruency: congruent, incongruent) repeated-measure ANOVA analysis on accuracy rate indicated that the main effect of congruency was marginally significant [ F (1 , 22) = 3.81, P = 0.06, η 2 = 0.15].
Nevertheless, there is a marginally significant difference in Ln LF values of HTA subjects during different experimental phases [ F (2,47) = 3.01, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.22].
We observed marginally non-significant differences (between-sessions’ effects) in mean EES scores of all three weeks between the exercise sessions ( p = 0.06, p η 2 : 0.09), where the participants reported higher enjoyment in INT80 sessions compared with CE70 sessions ( p = 0.06), with no differences between INT80 vs.
Behavioral Results Accuracy The repeated ANOVA results revealed a marginally significant congruency effect ( F = 3.64, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.09), such that the participants responded more accurately in the congruent trials ( M = 0.988, SD = 0.003) than in the incongruent trials ( M = 0.985, SD = 0.003).
Higher maternal education had a marginally significant association with lower AOSI scores [ t (37) = −1.97, p = 0.06].