Excerpts

Differences in the incidence of injuries depending on the duration of the training session were close to the level of significance ( p = 0.056).

A marginally significant trend was found at the post-treatment assessment for the differences between the experimental vs. control groups (MMSE Δmean = 5.60; SE = 3.41; p = 0.056).

More importantly, the interaction effect was marginally significant, b = 0.35, SE = 0.18, t = 1.92, p = 0.056, 95% CI [−0.009, 0.72] (see Figure 4 ).

As shown in Table 4 and Table 5 , pet attachment and subjective SES had a marginally significant interaction effect on fertility intention beyond the controls and the main effects of subjective SES and pet attachment ( ∆R 2 = 0.014, p = 0.056).

The gender difference of weighted 12-month prevalence of depressive disorder not otherwise specified was marginally significant (female 1.6% vs. male 1.2%, p = 0.056) [ 3 ].

Solely in the case of the overhand pass there was only a statistical trend in the acquisition phase ( p = 0.056, r = 0.256), although there was a significant increase in the retention phase ( p = 0.024, r = 0.288).

Perceived necessity of HPDs demonstrated a weak trend toward significance (x 2 (2, N = 115) = 5.76, p = 0.056), but did not reach the threshold for statistical significance.

Greenhouse gas emissions showed marginal significance in Model 1 ( p = 0.056) and were excluded from Model 2, indicating a weak and inconsistent association.

No significant differences but a strong trend with large ES were found between RPE values (F (7,42) = 2.176; p = 0.056; η 2 = 0.27). 3.3.

Although the overall differences in the training received in the different ICT usage groups are found only at the limit of significance (χ 2 = 9.23, p = 0.056), the DC-LC usage group stands out for having had less training opportunities (71.7% compared to 84.2% for all the groups; Adjusted Standardized Residual = −2.4, p < 0.05). 5.

Concerning the first research hypothesis (H1a), the results from ANOVA ( Figure 6 ) reveal a near-significant main effect of the group ( F (3, 46) = 2.706, p = 0.056, η 2 p = 0.150), with participants with natural scenarios as their recovery scenario reporting higher valence ratings than those in the Neutral group.

The link with frequency of winter green space visits also contributed 1% to the model but only approached significance (χ 2 p = 0.056). 3.2.

The difference in retention rates at month one was marginally significant ( P = 0.056), while those at month 6 ( P = 0.025) and month 12 ( P = 0.005) were statistically significant. 3.3.

At month one, the inter-group difference in the employment status reached marginal significance (RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.99–1.51, P = 0.056).

Given that the boolean variables of fixation and saccade are in most cases opposite (or equivalently, a near-perfect negative correlation), we believe that the near-significant insignificance ( p = 0.056 ) could be due to random fluctuation, and hence that the time ratio of fixation actually has a relation with the intensity of visual stimulation. 3.3.3.

For the high-strength group, the linear regression revealed a marginally significant effect of intergroup comparison on the intention to conserve water ( b = 11.779, SE = 6.115, t = 1.93, p = 0.056).

Message Receptivity For message receptivity, there was a statistically significant main effect for risk content ( F 1,685 = 23.4, p < 0.001) and the main effect for message theme approached significance ( F 2,685 = 5.3, p = 0.056; Table 3 ).

No statistically significant differences were observed between values before or after the onset of the pandemic, although there was a marginally significant higher proportion of participants with decreases >2 in depressive scores (improvement) before than after the onset of the pandemic (22.7% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.056).

Slightly more ophthalmic nurses (28.9%) received training on PPE compared to the ophthalmologists (14.0%) but this was at borderline significance ( p = 0.056) ( Figure 3 ). 4.

There were no gender differences in any motivation to practice SDU; only the motivation to escape and have fun approached significance (women = 36.6%, men = 52.8%; χ 2 = 3.658, p = 0.056). 3.6.

Compared to the TCS, normalized PM 2.5 concentrations were significantly reduced in four of the five ACSs tested ( Figure 3 A, marginally significant for the Greenway stove, p = 0.056).

Besides, the problem with family, friends, school, or fight as a result of drugs use was marginally significant ( p = 0.056), showing that the students in the last year had a high score. 3.2.

Additionally, there was a nearly significant positive relation between EBF and full-term deliveries ( p = 0.057) and LBW ( p = 0.072).

All model coefficients are statistically significant at a 5% significance level, except the percentage of Native Americans at the margin of statistical significance ( p = 0.057).

In the linear regression of LHN, which included a term for laboratory batch, the group variable was borderline significant ( p = 0.057), batch was statistically significant ( p < 0.001), and the model R 2 was 0.30. 3.5.