Excerpts

Luminance standard deviation showed a trend toward significance ( F (2,123) = 2.96, p = 0.06) but did not exceed the conventional threshold.

A marginally significant difference emerged in perceived fear between the MS group ( M = 6.17, SD = 3.01) and the control group ( M = 5.19, SD = 3.13; t (1, 138) = 1.89, p = 0.06, Cohen’s d = 0.32, 95%CI [−0.01, 0.66]).

There was a marginal significance for the sentence reading time results in the omitted stroke error and correct conditions ( t = 1.88, p = 0.06). 4.

The cluster-value showed a significant trend in the probability distribution between esto and ésta ( p = 0.06).

Familiarity with App Inventor was a marginally significant predictor of selection to the central position (β = 0.39, p = 0.06).

A one way ANOVA comparing group performance in the acoustic condition of the rhythmic synchronization task after 1 year of training showed a strong trend toward significance F (1,30) = 3.54, p = 0.06 with the music group outperforming the control group.

(2) Algorithmic awareness has a marginally significant positive effect on the level of perceived power, β = 0.62, SE = 0.32, p = 0.06.

Scores on the SCPBI-Y (pain burden) approached significance ( p = 0.06).

It should also be noted that although the interaction of worries with HWS-PE was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06), the same trend was observed (i.e., that the effect of COVID-19 worries on anxiety was stronger among individuals with low HWS-PE).

Only switch costs came close to significance ( p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.096) and were further scrutinized using paired t -tests.

In particular, we observed a negative correlation with valence ratings for Corr, r (58) = -0.26, p < 0.05, and a positive correlation with valence ratings for Resp, although the latter only reached marginal significance, r (58) = -0.24, p = 0.06.

Condition was a marginally significant trend, B = 0.78, SE = 0.41, Wald χ 2 (1) = 3.72, p = 0.06.

Furthermore, the main effect of group norms on fWOM was marginally significant ( t (105) = 1.9, p = 0.06, Cohen's d = 0.43).

The relation of attentional control to reading comprehension was marginally significant (0.19, p = 0.06) after controlling for short-term memory, decoding, vocabulary, and inference.

Similarly, the analysis for the P600 time window revealed a statistical trend toward a main effect of Structure [ F (1, 18) = 3.98, p = 0.06], a significant main effect of Emphasis [with Emphasis on NP1 more positive than on NP2; F (1, 18) = 4.7, p < 0.05], but no interaction between Structure and Emphasis [ F (1, 18) = 1.81, p = 0.19].

During the unrestricted night, we found a positive correlation approaching significance between age and performance change ( r = 0.42; n = 22; p = 0.06) so that with increasing age, performance improved from immediate to delayed testing.

Time of testing approached significance ( p = 0.06), because participants tended to make more errors during quarantine (mean = 1.17) than before it (mean = 0.96).

In addition, students with one or both parents who were high school graduates were reclassified earlier than students whose parents were not high school graduates, reaching marginal significance ( p = 0.06).

We found that the difference in percentage fused responses for /ba/ −primed trials (mean 27.6) and /ga/ −primed trials (mean 25.8) fell just short of statistical significance ( p = 0.06).

There was a significant interaction between the group and time for the multivariate test, Wilks Lambda = 0.93, F (2, 94) = 3.60, p = 0.03, partial η 2 = 0.07, and a marginally non-significant interaction effect for the univariate test - F (2, 190) = 2.83, p = 0.06, partial η 2 = 0.03.

More interestingly, the Proposed solution x Group interaction was marginally significant [ F (1.32) = 3.69, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0 . 10 ].

Analyses showed a marginally significant condition effect for negative expectations [ F (1,51) = 3.74, p = 0.06], suggesting larger decreases in negative expectations in the BPS group, compared to the control group at post-training.

Results from the mixed-design 2 (time) × 2 (training group) × 3 (type of description) ANOVA showed that the time by group by type of description interaction approached significance, F (2,116) = 2.80, MSE = 0.84, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.05.

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).

The ANCOVA revealed no significant group difference for the 0–20 number line estimation errors [ F (1, 37) = 2.77; p = 0.11; partial eta 2 = 0.05], but did reveal a significant difference for the overall estimation error score [ F (1, 37) = 4.36, p = 0.044; partial eta 2 = 0.11], and a borderline significant difference for estimation errors in the 0–100 number line task, [ F (1, 37) = 3.77, p = 0.06; partial eta 2 = 0.092].