Barely Significant
← all phrases

“approached significance”

8,238 sentences · 8,238 papers · 9,796 search hits before verification

In the literature

approached significancep = .0671.3× alpha
A main effect of Athletic status approached significance, F (1,63) = 3.48, p = .067, η p 2 = .06, so that Athletes ( M = .82, SD = .2) were more accurate than Non-athletes ( M = .75, SD = .25), but this finding was not significant.
Does optic flow provide information about actions?
Atten Percept Psychophys · 2023 · PMC10013980
approached significanceP = 0.0671.3× alpha
The proportion of caregivers currently working outside the home who reported feeding snack foods or beverages to their child because these foods were convenient in terms of preparation time, compared with caregivers who were not currently working, approached significance ( P = 0.067).
approached significancep = 0.0671.3× alpha
Results showed that the interaction between Group and Session was significant when the MI group was compared to the control group [ F (1,17) = 7.00, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.29], approached significance between the VR and control groups [ F (1,17) = 7.00, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.18], but was not significant between the MI and VR groups.
approached significancep = 0.0671.3× alpha
In contrast, after adjustment for age and gender, %RTEs was significantly higher in patients on oral corticosteroids (n = 8; 58.3%) than in those not on oral corticosteroids (n = 40; 47.0%; p = 0.013), and the comparison with HCs (n = 77) approached significance (49.8%; p = 0.067).
Thymic function in juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
Ann Rheum Dis · 2009 · PMC2674551
approached significancep = 0.0671.3× alpha
The interaction between Speaker and Adapter ambiguity approached significance, F (1,15) = 3.19, p = 0.067, η p 2 = 0.207, because the proportion of “b” responses averaged across Vb and Vd adapters was somewhat higher for “self,” than for “other” (the difference was 0.14 for ambiguous adapters, and 0.05 for unambiguous ones).
approached significancep = 0.0671.3× alpha
Although the difference in CAR for the gluteus maximus and gluteus medius between individuals with and without PFP did not reach a statistical significance in our study, comparisons for the gluteus maximus approached significance, indicating a possible lower gluteus maximus CAR in participants with PFP compared to pain-free controls (p = 0.067).
approached significancep = 0.0671.3× alpha
3 , the correlation between the GMSI and SDA scores was significant for Classical and Jazz ( r (28) = 0.41, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.67], p = 0.024; r (28) = 0.44, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.69], p = 0.016), as well as when collapsing SDA scores across styles ( r (28) = 0.41, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.67], p = 0.025); it approached significance for Random ( r (28) = 0.34, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.62], p = 0.067); and it was non-significant for Avant-garde ( r (28) = 0.11, 95% CI = [−0.26, 0.45], p = 0.58).