The Trees & Bio group saw a marginally significant improvement over the No GI group ( p = 0.06).
Excerpts
Moreover, a simple effect analysis showed that, in the case of high-SES individuals, the individual whose autonomy need was satisfied had a larger impact bias than the individual whose autonomy need was not satisfied, which was marginally significant with a large effect size, i.e., M satisfied = 0.78, SD = 1.09, M unsatisfied = 0.23, SD = 1.17, t (58) = 1.88, 95% CI [−0.03, 1.13], p = 0.06 and d = 0.96.
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.
Familiarity with App Inventor was a marginally significant predictor of selection to the central position (β = 0.39, 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).
An ANOVA-type statistics (ATS) with within-subject factor Moment (interesting, non-interesting) and between-subject factor Person (PwD, MT) showed a significant interaction between Moment and Person [ATS(1) = 15.72, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant effect of Person [ATS(1) = 3.41, p = 0.06].
marginally non-significantp = 0.06
In contrast, within the clinical group, the RFQ-C showed negative correlations with BPD features, depression, and anxiety, and displayed marginally non-significant associations with internalizing ( p = 0.06) and externalizing difficulties ( p = 0.08).
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]).
approached significancep = 0.060
Only the inhibition variable approached significance ( β = 0.270, t = 1.924, p = 0.060).
marginally non-significantp = 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.
Meanwhile, middle-to-higher-income Latino(a) parents, in comparison with White parents, reported significantly more changes in appreciation of life (95% CI Mdifference [0.16, 1.25], p < 0.01), improved relationships (95% CI Mdifference [0.16, 1.13], p < 0.01), and new possibilities (95% CI Mdifference [0.15, 1.16], p < 0.01), as well as more changes in personal strength that was approaching significance (95% CI Mdifference [−0.02, 1.12], p = 0.06).
Future outlook differences became borderline significant using median split and extreme groups methods ( p = 0.06 and 0.07, respectively), while physical activity differences became non-significant using the extreme groups method ( p = 0.157).
The main effect of framing condition was only marginally significant ( z = −1.86, p = 0.06).
A chi-square test revealed a marginally significant association between hassle and behavioral orientation ( χ 2 = 5.63, df = 2, p = 0.06).
a trend toward significancep = 0.06
Luminance standard deviation showed a trend toward significance ( F (2,123) = 2.96, p = 0.06) but did not exceed the conventional threshold.
(2) Algorithmic awareness has a marginally significant positive effect on the level of perceived power, β = 0.62, SE = 0.32, p = 0.06.
close to significancep = 0.060
Only switch costs came close to significance ( p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.096) and were further scrutinized using paired t -tests.
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).
The Other × BPQ term approached but did not reach significance ( b = 0.09, SE = 0.05, t = 1.89, p = 0.060); corresponding simple-slope estimates at BPQ = −1/0/+1 SD were 0.00 / 0.02 / 0.05.
Considering the marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.06) and the exploratory nature of investigating bystanders’ roles in prosocial intervention, we conducted a comparison examining the condition effects within each task type.
Although the individual spline basis terms were only marginally significant ( p = 0.06 and p = 0.08, respectively), the overall improvement in model fit provides suggestive evidence of a non-linear association between workload and workplace well-being.
For microstructure, MLUm was significant, F (3, 52) = 9.75, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.36, with Language group not being significant, p = 0.60, the interaction between Language and Age group nearing significance, p = 0.06, and Age group being significant, p < 0.001.
almost reached significancep < 0.06
Moreover, the interaction between Language and kind of Verb almost reached significance as well, F (1, 72) = 3.68, MSe = 3490.70, p < 0.06.
approached significancep < 0.06
The interaction between number of targets and self-motion approached significance [ F (4,52) = 2.43, MSE = 45.43, p < 0.06].
Post hoc paired-sample t -tests reported significant difference between Static and Moving conditions at the presentation duration of 1200 ms [ t (11) = −4.586, p = 0.002], though it failed to reach significance under 800 ms [ t (11) = 0.561, p > 0.999], and with marginally significant difference under 1000 ms [ t (11) = −2.717, p = 0.060] presentation duration (all Bonferroni-corrected).