Barely Significant

Excerpts

6,422 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
Regarding theta 2 power, the main effects of time [ F (1,58) = 9.89, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.15], site [ F (3,174) = 33.45, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.37], and condition [ F (3,174) = 39.31, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.40] were observed; importantly, a marginally significant interaction effect of time point × site × condition × group [ F (9,522) = 1.75, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.03] was observed.
approaching significancep =0.071.4× alphagold
For example, parent use of praise per minute was related to parent spatial language per minute, r (31)=0.52, p <0.05, and the relation between parent praise and parent use of persistence-focused language per minute was approaching significance, r (31)=0.33, p =0.07.
marginally significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
Here, we find that the Intentional condition has a marginally significant difference from the Accidental condition [the chi-squared test of proportion; χ 2 (1, n = 68) = 2.89 p = 0.07], and has no significant difference between Intentional and Control conditions [the chi-squared test of proportion; χ 2 (1, n = 71) = 1.0, p = 0.32] nor between Accidental and Control conditions [the chi-squared test of proportion; χ 2 (1, n = 37) = 0.02, p = 0.88].
The Intentional Selection Assumption.
Front Psychol · 2021 · PMC8576492
weakly significantp = 0.0701.4× alphaqualifiedgold
The results of the one-sided two-sample T -tests are presented as following: the control group, the participants who were simply asked for a donation, donated more than the first treatment group who were offered the tote bag as a thank-you gift ( p = 0.048, mean.c = 28.76, Sd-c = 25.65, mean.t1 = 24.01, Sd.t1 = 25.74); the difference become insignificant when compared to the second treatment group for whom the statement is given ( p = 0.205, mean.c = 28.76, Sd.c = 25.65, mean.t2 = 27.93, Sd.t2 = 25.42); however, the difference between the control groups is only weakly significant ( p = 0.070, mean.t1 = 24.01, Sd.t1 = 25.74, mean.t2 = 27.93, Sd.t2 = 25.42).
close to significancep = 0.0711.4× alpha
We also found a stimulus type by length interaction [ F (1,24) = 6.488, p = 0.018, partial μ 2 = 0.213], as the length effect was smaller in pseudowords with consistent graphemes than in pseudowords with context-dependent graphemes; the block by stimulus type was close to significance [ F (1,24) = 3.571, p = 0.071, partial μ 2 = 0.130], indicating that RTs of pseudowords with consistent graphemes decreased more quickly with repeated reading; and a block by length interaction [ F (1,24) = 18.629, p < 0.001, partial μ 2 = 0.437], as the typical readers showed a length effect reduction with the repetitions.