Barely Significant
← all phrases

“fell short of significance”

362 sentences · 362 papers · 438 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.07

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

fell short of significancep = .061.2× alphagold
The corresponding main effect for W1 parent-rated boldness in the analysis for SCR to the noise blast itself was in the same direction, with children who exhibited less SCR to the noise blast across signaled trials tending to score higher in parent-rated boldness at W1 ( r = -.06), but fell short of significance, F (1, 1,080) = 3.54, p = .06.
fell short of significancep = 0.0601.2× alphagold
Leaf, reflecting the integration of information within the network, fell short of significance in both the upper alpha and beta bands, F = 3.563, p = 0.060, η 2 = 0.011, and F = 2.922, p = 0.088, η 2 = 0.008, respectively, suggesting a trend for higher leaf fraction in the IA group compared to the HC group.
fell short of significancep = 0.061.2× alphagold
1 B ; main effect of genotype, p < 0.02 b2 ; Hom vs WT b6 or Het b7 , p < 0.009) and play attacks: while the main effect of genotype fell short of significance for play attacks ( p = 0.06 for ANOVA and p = 0.09 for Kruskal–Wallis test c2 ), post hoc comparisons indicated that Hom weanlings did exhibit fewer play attacks than WT weanlings ( p < 0.04 c6 ; not illustrated).
fell short of significancep = 0.061.2× alphagold
This analysis revealed a significant proportion of temporal cases when vocal acoustics were measured by multidimensional clustering (3D acoustics, p <0.05 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons indicated by cross in Figure 2d ), but the same measure fell short of significance when the three acoustic parameters were considered individually ( p = 0.06–0.24 after Bonferroni correction).
fell short of significancep = .0641.3× alphagold
After adjusting for age, gender, and study indicator, greater frequency of communication about difficult topics ( β = 0.722, p = .020) and use of wishful thinking ( β = 5.532, p = .009) were still significantly associated with stronger prosocial strengths; however, communication comfort just fell short of significance ( β = 0.417, p = .064).