Excerpts

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).

For the BMI, the difference between the correlation with the ideal-IRAP and the actual-IRAP just missed significance, t (46) = 1.91, p = 0.06.

However, both Congruency and Electrode showed a trend toward significance, with values F (1,42) = 3.69, p = 0.06, and F (4,168) = 3.01, p = 0.05, ε = 0.50, respectively.

SR Overlap Condition: Simon Task The N2 component in the SR Overlap condition was analyzed in a 2 × 2 × 5 ANOVA analysis (Congruency x Group x Electrode) which revealed no significant main effects or interactions, although the main effect of Electrode approached significance, F (4,168) = 2.86, p = 0.06, ε = 0.44.

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

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 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].

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).

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 fact, we observed marginally significant ( p = 0.06, Student's t -test for case 1 ) and significant ( p = 0.009) preference bias in gaze for the last half second and for the half second after the decision timing, respectively.

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.

Although the effect of age was consistently negative for all three groups, it only reached significance for the SC monolectals, z SCmonolectals : age = −2.51, p < 0.05, and did not reach significance for the SC-SH bi-dialectals, z SC − SHbi − dialectals : age = −1.87, p =0.06 (marginally significant), or the SC-OD bi-dialectals, z SC − ODbi − dialectals : age = −0.77, p =0.06.

Faculty ratings varied at a marginal significance level according to experimental group ( F = 2.89, 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.

A 2 (type of alternative: cognitive/affective) × 2 (decision condition: distraction/immediate) mixed ANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction [ F (1, 118) = 3.56, p = 0.06, η 2 p = 0.03].

This model was marginally significant, F (3,75) = 2.54, r 2 adj = 0.06, p = 0.06, driven by a significant association with declarative memory, but not procedural memory, after controlling for site (see Table 3B for parameter estimates).

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.

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).

When adjusting for age and gender, we found no changes in the pattern of results with one exception: the direct effect of self-control just missed significance, b = 0.198, β = 0.210, SE = 0.105, p = 0.060.

When word frequency was added as a covariate in the analysis it approached significance ( F (1,2.732) = 3.45, p = 0.06).

RESULTS Error rates Speakers made more errors in reproducing sentences with weak bias verbs ( M = 0.36, SD = 0.48) than strong bias verbs ( M = 0.31, SD = 0.46), but the difference was only marginally significant (β = -0.25, SE = 0.13, z = -1.90, p = 0.06).

Nonetheless, the total effect was marginally significant ( b = −0.39; β = −0.10; 95% CI [−0.21–0.01], SE = 0.20, p = 0.06), which suggests the indirect and direct pathways accounted for variance in treatment-seeking intention to a small degree. 1 Discussion The current study examined the association between mental illness self-stigma, externalizing proneness, and the intention to seek treatment.

Only for subjective sleep quality, the linear equation produced the largest effect size (the quadratic effect just failed to reach significance, p = 0.06).

Further demonstrating the utility of the initial dip as a biomarker for metabolic overdrive, neither group alone (nor as a single aggregated group) had significant correlations between the subsequent PVC positive response (~6 s post stimulus onset) and drift rate improvement ( Figure 5B ; though the correlation of the minority group was marginally significant cc = −0.62, P = 0.06).

For the emotion labeling effect, the overall model was nearly significant, R 2 adj. = 0.10, F (5,55) = 2.28, p = 0.06.