Excerpts

One study was of borderline significance ( p = 0.059) [ 29 ].

Among the health variables only the sleep quality score showed borderline significance ( p = 0.0594).

None of the other predictor variables were significant, although caregiver depressive affect was trending toward significance ( t = 1.83, p = 0.06).

Mean Der f 1 levels were significantly higher in homes built before 1990 compared to those built after 1990 (47.61 μg/g versus 10.96 μg/g, p = 0.043; 17.54 μg/m 2 , versus 0.2 μg/m 2 , p = 0.012) A sampling surface of carpet, compared to hardwood, predicted dust weight (1.13 g versus 0.30 g; p < 0.001), but not Der f 1 levels expressed as μg/g ( p > 0.6); carpet sampling surface approached significance as a predictor of Der f 1 levels expressed as μg/m 2 ( p = 0.06).

The correlation between sitting time and lapses of attention approached significance ( r = 0.16, p = 0.06— Figure A1 ).

As demonstrated in Table 4 , Model 1 (without moderators) highlights that PA parenting practices were significantly associated with adolescents’ self-report of MVPA and that there was a trend towards significance ( p = 0.06) with adolescents’ MVPA measured by accelerometry.

The moderator variable, the interaction between prime and extraversion, was a marginally significant predictor of Risk-Taking in the GDT, F (3,69) = 2.54, p = 0.06.

Although a significant model fit to the data emerged, the predictive power of conscious motor processing was only marginally significant (after 1 month, p = 0.06; after 2 months, p = 0.08).

77.7%, p = 0.02), whereas perceived severity was only marginally significant (91.1% vs. 78.5%, p = 0.06).

Using the internet for Facebook/e-mail/web-browsing was borderline significant for girls ( p = 0.06) in the unadjusted model and non-significant in the adjusted model.

The main effect of the expression type approached significance in the initial model (β = 0.003, st. err = 0.002, t = 1.91, p = 0.06), but the result did not remain statistically significant after varying the slope of the main effect.

Perceived online social support did not have a strong direct effect on the drive for thinness, though the effect was weak and marginally significant (β = −0.11, p = 0.06; CI = −0.61; 0.01).

The differences between means in the education variable were near significance ( p = 0.06).

The intervention and time interaction showed marginal significance (F(1, 139) = 3.51, p = 0.06), suggesting a somewhat different effect of the two interventions for all groups.

The addition of transitivity and the out-degree in models 2 and 3 each approached significance at p < 0.06.

However, we found only limited evidence of a dose-response truth® effect on openness to smoking as the difference in the effect between high and medium truth® recall was only marginally significant (p=0.06).

When the models were controlled for chronological age, MVPA, and SES, only the sum of four skinfolds showed a significant association with the total FMS score (β = −0.03, p < 0.0001), while the coefficient for waist circumference approached significance (β = −0.04, p = 0.06).

A significant interaction between groups was observed for FVC ( p = 0.02) and a nearly significant interaction was observed for FEV 1 ( p = 0.06). 3.2.

Additionally in Step 3, academic motivation had a marginally significant effect on PTG (B = 0.16, p = 0.060).

Moreover, cross tabulations demonstrated a trend towards significance X 2 (1, n = 40) = 3.48, p = 0.060) on parental depression scores as a result of intervention. 3.3.

After training, both groups showed a trend of improvements in the lower extremity-Brunnstrom stage ( p = 0.06 and 0.08, respectively).

First, the face and body groups reported significantly greater functional impairment and emotional distress compared with the fingerpicking group (although the difference for emotional distress was only marginally significant from those with primarily body picking, p = 0.06).

Specifically, individuals with a grandparent who attended IRS, but not a parent, spent more time in the CWS compared to those with no IRS family history, but this only approached significance, χ 2 (1) = 3.65, p = 0.06.

As a result, there was a significant correlation between the intervention group and ΔDASS-anxiety ( r = 0.35, p < 0.05); ΔDASS-depression and ΔDASS-stress showed a marginally significant correlation ( r = 0.29, p = 0.06; r = 0.26, p = 0.09, respectively).

Although the variation in practice across grades was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06), Grade 9 learners reported the highest level of hygiene practice (M = 0.54), indicating a possible trend.