“marginally significant”

Specifically, Yu and Shek ( 2013 ) reported that better family functioning characterized by better family mutuality, less conflicts and more communication among family members predicted a lower level of Chinese adolescents' IA 2 years later with the marginally significant effect (i.e., p = 0.06).

At the broad scale, a Mantel test showed a marginally significant non-random association between genetic and spatial distance (Monte Carlo test p < 0.06; 50 000 replications).

The context type by group interaction was marginally significant, F (1, 26) = 3.9, p = .06, η p 2 = .12.

Three-group comparisons showed, however, a marginally significant effect of group on TL in naïve cytotoxic T cells ( F [2,34] = 3.07, p = 0.06) and a significant effect on TL in memory cytotoxic T cells ( F [2,13.7] = 5.68, p = 0.02), with a stepwise decrease in TL from non-depressed control subjects over MDD patients without CSA to MDD patients with CSA, who presented the shortest TL.

We found a marginally significant negative effect of watering treatment on cover diversity ( p = .06, Figure 2 h) but no significant effect of OTC treatment on cover diversity.

In contrast, I bs was only a relatively weak and marginally significant (Beta = 0.180, p = 0.06) predictor of female obesity prevalence ( Table 5 ).

obscurus (weight shift) was negatively and significantly correlated with lipophilicity (r = −0.84, p = 0.03; Figure 3 A), where a marginally significant (r = −0.73, p = 0.06; Figure 3 B) negative tendency between the feeding behavior and logVP were observed. 3.

A marginally significant difference was identified between these two correlation coefficients ( z = 1.88 , p = 0.06 ). 4 Discussion In the present study, direct gaze had a significant overall impact on the behavioral data in both groups.

Even if this result becomes marginally significant ( p = .06) when impulsivity-related variables are included in the regression model, it suggests that switching off FB-related notifications can constitute a protective factor against problematic use.

This comparison found that marginally significant blood pressure decreases were more pronounced in the haloperidol + benzodiazepine group compared to olanzapine + benzodiazepine recipients ( P = .06).

4 , this area was found marginally significant (p = 0.06) different between PCS with no depression (n = 18) and PCS with moderate/severe depression (n = 14) and also when comparing each of these two groups with the healthy control group (p = 0.08).

There was a marginally significant effect of valence, F (2, 90) = 2.95, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.06.

Analyses of variance showed marginally significant less differentiation of US-expectancies in the Probe compared to the No probe condition (Stimulus × Trial × Condition: F( 1,17) = 4.04, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.19; Fig. 2 ).

Finally, regarding EE, a significant increase was seen in this variable from pre-test to post-test ( p = 0.02, 95%CI: 0.008–0.11), whereas a marginally significant decrease was found overall from post-test to follow-up ( p = 0.06, 95%CI: −0.003 to 0.18).

The difference was marginally significant (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15–1.04, P = 0.06).

Although we found no age differences in parent-report of impersonation ( p = 0.42), we found marginally significant age differences in parent-report of ICs [ F (2,61) = 2.97, p = 0.06] with 9-year-olds having the lowest rate of parent-report (76%).

This item type effect was qualified by an interaction with culture, F (1.42, 196.73) = 3.45, MSE = 0.06, p < .05, η 2 = 0.02; and a marginally significant 3-way interaction, F (1.42, 196.73) = 3.24, MSE = 0.06, p = .06, η 2 = 0.02.

Participant height (added as a fixed effect to the intercept-only model) had a marginally significant effect on coins kept for self in the ultimatum game, Wald χ 2 (1) = 3.53, b = 0.005, SE = 0.003, 95% CI = [< 0.001, 0.011], p = .060 (QICc = 22.93), suggesting a trend in which shorter participants kept more coins for themselves.

In AG, results showed a marginally significant correlation ( r = -0.64 r 2 = 0.41, p = 0.06) for which the stronger the mu rhythm suppression, the higher the subjective rating of Presence (Figure 7A ).

From the longer time series (2009–2015) available from seven data loggers, five showed a positive trend in minimum soil temperature (1‐ALZ west, 3‐SIN south, 4‐ISA east, 4‐ISA south, 4‐ISA west, with R 2 = 0.6, 0.2, 0.3, 0.2, 0.5, respectively), whereby 1‐ALZ west was marginally significant ( p = 0.06), and four showed a positive trend in mean temperature (1‐ALZ south, 3‐SIN west, 3‐SIN south, 4‐ISA west, with R 2 > 0.2).

A χ 2 -homogeneity test revealed just a marginally significant difference between the interleaved and the blocked group at T1 with a small effect size, χ 2 (5, N = 2288) = 10.55, p = 0.06, C corr = 0.10.

However, a significant effect on mortality resulted from combining thiacloprid at one tenth MRD with tebuconazole at one tenth MRD (p = 0.03), one half MRD (p = 0.02) and MRD (p<0.01), as well as a marginally significant effect when combined with tebuconazole at one twentieth MRD (p = 0.06).

( 2006 ) showed that, in the privileged block, the difference between salient (5.4%) and non-salient (0.5%) trials was marginally significant by speakers ( F 1 , p < .06) and significant by items ( F 2 , p < .05).

Furthermore, and suggesting a lack of safety concerns might be due to feeling less responsible for the research assistant, in comparison to those who raised their concerns, those who spoke-up despite being unconcerned felt less obligated to raise concerns, MD = −1.48, p = 0.004, and less sorry for the research assistant's problems, MD = −1.16, p = 0.02, and a marginally significant trend suggested they might have less concerns that they think the research assistant was not aware of, MD = −0.1.24, p = 0.06.

There was also a marginally significant interaction effect ( b = .53, t (49) = 1.90, p = .06, d = .54), indicating that when participants wore the HoloLens, those who interacted with a partner that was virtually occluded by the Stanford logo felt marginally less connected to their partner than participants who interacted with a partner that was not virtually occluded ( b = .85, t (49) = 2.17, p = .03).