“marginally significant”

Of those who had not received depot neuroleptics, it was offered to 20% of the psychosis and 7% of the non-psychosis patients which was marginally significant (χ 2 (2)=5.75, P=0.056).

Independent T-test showed a marginally significant difference in the magnitude of the SE, t(37) = 2.0, p = .056, d = .63 following avoiding gaze feedback (see Figure 3 ).

There was a marginally significant ( p = 0.056) main effect of treatment evident in the germ on day 5 ( Figure 5D ).

In the external validation set, among patients with ccRCC, a significant association was observed between the positive presence of SFL-TLS and longer PFS (p=0.028, HR=0.320), while its relationship with OS was marginally significant (p=0.056, HR=0.181).

Considering only the MEM anticipations towards the target direction, differences between ASD and TD became marginally significant ( p = 0.056, d = 0.5, see Table 4 ).

As hypothesized, wave 1 self-regulation had a significant negative impact on inattentive driving ( β = −.145, p = .002) but a non-significant negative impact on reckless driving ( β = −.052, p = .163) and the difference in effects was marginally significant (χ 2 (1) = 3.64, N = 1630, p = .056).

The ANCOVA revealed a significant treatment effect for the DSES, F(1,20) = 12.31, p = .002, and a marginally significant effect for the intrinsic subscale of the Age Universal I-E scale, F(1,20) = 4.07, p = .056, at endpoint.

In addition, expressive language at 11 and reading comprehension at 11 (both using raw scores) were marginally significant, χ 2 (2) = 5.75, p = .056 and χ 2 (2) = 5.69, p = .058, respectively.

The interaction between group membership and online chat was marginally significant, F (1, 38) = 3.872, P = 0.056, η 2 = 0.092.

This analysis was not significant for the full sample ( β = 0.176, r 2 = 0.031, p = 0.103), but was significant within child and YA groups together ( β = 0.305, r 2 = 0.093, p = 0.041), and was marginally significant within child, YA and MA groups together ( β = 0.228, r 2 = 0.052, p = 0.056).

In the control group there were no significant changes between the first and the second testing ( p = 1.00) and the change observed at the third testing was marginally significant ( p = 0.056 for the first vs. third measurements and p = 0.11 for the second vs. third measurements).

Postnatal life events became marginally significant ( p = 0.056), such that more yearly life events was associated with larger normalized AGV.

The three-way interaction was marginally significant, F (3,72) = 2.641, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.099.

The interaction effect between input mode and text difficulty was marginally significant, F (1, 58) = 3.81, p = 0.056, indicating that in general, insertions made by the dictation group were more sensitive to text difficulty than those made by the typing group. 4.3.2.

We further found a marginally significant interaction between aphid treatment and plant variety on total chlorophyll content ( F 6 , 45 = 2.25, P = 0.056), where high and low aphid densities reduced chlorophyll content only in Clemson variety but had no effect on other okra varieties ( Figure 5C ).

( 2001 ) had documented marginally significant ( p < 0.056) differences between children with and without ADHD using a similar sensory challenge.

However, a marginally significant interaction between Deviant type and Group was yielded, F (1,28) = 3.962, p = 0.056.

A weak positive correlation was found between lecturer's perceived competency and emotions of threat [ r (238) = -.248 p < 0.01] and a marginally significant correlation was found with failure [ r (238) = -.124 p = 0.056].

Interestingly, we furthermore found a marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.056) of group and musical rhythm perception ability to account for reading ability.

In YRI, the MBB indicates marginally significant signals at FOXP2 exons 4–8 ( P = 0.056).

There was a marginally significant difference between sides for aerosol cages ( F 1,11.5 = 4.5, P = 0.056).

Adolescent gender was kept in the model because of a marginally significant effect ( b = −0.28, p = 0.056), and the other nonsignificant covariates were removed from the subsequent models.

Pairwise comparisons of studies assessing beliefs and studies assessing religious behaviors yielded marginally significant differences ( Q = 3.64, df = 1; p = .056).

Personal Event Mann–Whitney U -tests on free recall performance revealed significant differences for two periods: recent past ( z = 2.93, p = 0.004, η 2 = 0.25), near future ( z = 2.41, p = 0.01, η 2 = 0.18) and a marginally significant effect for the distant future ( z = 1.95, p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.11).

p = 0.0043), whereas the difference in wrinkle volume was marginally significant ( adj . p = 0.056).