Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally non-significantP = 0.0591.2× alpha
There was a marginally non-significant difference between treatment groups during t 1 ( β (SE) = 4.67 (2.24), t = 2.08, P = 0.059), while no difference was observed between treatment groups during t 2 and t 3 ( t 2 : β (SE) = 0.64 (1.99), t = 0.32, P = 0.755; t 3 : β (SE) = –0.03 (2.07), t = 0.02, P = 0.987; Fig 1a ).
marginally significantp = .0591.2× alphagold
For correct rejections, there was a marginally significant effect of Applicant Age [F (2,70) = 2.95, p = .059, η p 2 = .078], with planned comparisons confirming that participants made fewer correct rejections for adolescent compared to child [t (35) = 3.25, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.39] and adult applicants [t (35) = 3.96, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.37] but no difference between for child and adult applicants [t (35) = 0.71, p > 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.06].
marginally significantp = .0591.2× alphagold
The inverted image yielded marginally significant differences in change ratios ( F (2,26) = 3.165, p = .059, η 2 = 0.196)(see Fig. 2 , bottom row).
Pareidolia in infants.
PLoS One · 2015 · PMC4331561
a trend towards significanceP = 0.0591.2× alpha
Besides mitotic index, tumor size and site, SKP2 high expression (RR = 2.91, 95% CI: 1.41–5.99, P = 0.004) and KIT exon 11 deletion (RR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.04–7.16, P = 0.041) were also independent risk factors in multivariate analysis, with gastrointestinal bleeding also showing a trend towards significance (RR = 1.88, 95% CI: 0.98–3.64, P = 0.059).
a statistical trendp = 0.0591.2× alphagold
Questionnaire None of the ANOVAs for complexity (F(1,14) = 0.358, p = 0.559), accuracy (F(1,14) = 0.071, p = 0.794) and intuitiveness ratings were indicative of relevant differences, yet there was a statistical trend in the within-subjects factor Method of the intuitiveness rating (F(1,14) = 4.230, p = 0.059), whereby participants show a trend to rate the PM-method as being more intuitive than the VAS-method (See Figure 3 ).
close-to-significantp = .0591.2× alphagold
(No hypothesis was made regarding negative affect due to previous conflicting findings) Self-report data indicated that across all participants, self-compassionate imagery had a small-to-medium-size effect on positive affect ( d = 0.40), producing a close-to-significant increase ( t (24) = -1.983, p = .059, 95% CI -5.38 to 0.11) from pre (M = 19.84, SD = 7.31) to post-imagery (M = 22.48, SD = 7.83).