However, the difference in turnover intentions between physicians and other staff was marginally significant, t (224) = −1.87, p =0.06, with a small effect size, Cohen’s d = 0.24.
← all phrases
“marginally significant”
Sighted at
p>=0.1
In the literature
Regional differences were marginally significant ( p = 0.060), with the highest mDFPS observed in the Southern (59.9%) and Central (57.1%) regions, compared to the Northern region (40.3%).
Although quite less than these studies, our model predicted only 10.7% of total intention, including the BFSN, showed the likely trait (marginally significant; p = .060; Table 3 ), so we included it in the model with further adjustment, and it was significant (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.01–2.71; Table 4 ).
After controlling for pre-test scores, we observed a marginally significant main effect for behavioral engagement, F (1,193) = 3.48, p =.06, η 2 = .01, 95% CI [.00, .05].
Finally, results of Model 8 revealed marginally significant effects of cocaine misuse diagnosis on the intercept ( p = .060) and slope ( p = .051), which were positive and negative, respectively.
A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that the main effect of self-control resources was marginally significant, F (1, 68) = 3.78, p = .06.
t, both p < 0.005, suggesting an “all or nothing” attitude toward compliance), individualistic reasons for compliance (while collectivist reasons for compliance were strongly and positively associated with trust, p < 0.001), educational level, time of data collection, and age (the last one showed a marginally significant negative correlation, β = −0.018, p = 0.06).
In the comparison between the footballers and control groups, the statistically significant differences were found in the following variables: in the BMI (Mann–Whitney = 512.5, p < 0.05), being higher in the footballer than in control condition with a moderate to high effect size, Cohen’s d = 0.65 (r = 0.31); in Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Global score) (Mann–Whitney = 492, p < 0.00), being higher in the footballer than in the control condition with a very high effect size, Cohen’s d = 2.3 (r = 0.75) and marginally significant in the Positive subscale (Mann-Whitney = 607, p = 0.06), being higher in the footballer than in control condition and there was a small to moderate to high effect size, Cohen’s d = 0.48 (r = 0.23); and in the Subscale 1 of the CAP (Mann–Whitney = 547, p < 0.05), being higher in the footballer than in the control condition with a small to moderate to high effect size, Cohen’s d = 0.52 (r = 0.25) ( Table 5 ).
Overall scores showed no significant differences between the VOR and VBR groups ( P =.20), but both exceeded the mean score of 71.4, indicating that the participants in both groups considered the app as being “good” to “excellent.” In terms of learnability scores, the two groups showed a marginally significant difference ( P =.06), suggesting that users found the VBR app slightly more difficult to learn to use.
Considering the marginally significant interaction ( p = 0.06) and the exploratory nature of investigating bystanders’ roles in prosocial intervention, we conducted a comparison examining the condition effects within each task type.
Post-hoc pairwise t-tests for Trails A indicated that the HC group's improvement across visits was marginally significant, t(15) = -2.04, p = .060 ).
There was also marginally significant ( p < 0.06) trend for antecedent events (0.48) to be rated higher than consequent events (0.45).
Baseline IL-6 was a marginally significant factor ( F 2,488 = 2.70, p = 0.06) suggesting greater reactivity in individuals with lower baseline IL-6 levels compared to those with higher levels at 75 min ( p = 0.02) but not at 45 min post-stress ( p = 0.16).
Though the AUC for 7T MRI was higher than that of 3T, the difference was marginally significant ( P = 0.06).
Simple slopes revealed that the slope of solitary TSD was significant for women in stable relationships ( B = 0.04, 95% CIs [0.01, 0.07], p = .02), but not for single women ( B = 0.02, 95% CIs [− 0.01, 0.06], p = .23), or men in a stable relationship ( B = 0.002, 95% CIs [− 0.04, 0.05], p = .92); effects were marginally significant for single men ( B = 0.05, 95% CIs [0.00, 0.10], p = .06; Fig. 3 a).
Interestingly, although BMI was marginally significant ( p = 0.06), it was not related to the desire for a bigger shape among boys.
Both tests showed, however, a marginally significant fit ( P = 0.06), most probably due to a low statistical power of the subsample and a resulting higher type II error.
The age differences during post-test were marginally significant [χ 2 (2, N = 342) = 5.63, p = 0.06, Cramer’s V = 0.13], indicating, in line with this latter finding, that the adults tended to choose the teacher less often than did the 7- and 10-year-olds.
= 1, 13 488, p = 0.6), extra-chorionic washes had a marginally significant fungistatic effect on Metarhizium conidia ( F = 2.1, d.f. = 11, 13 488, p = 0.06, GLMM).
Achieving significant weight loss at month 3 (≥5%) was associated with an increase in the log-odds of adherence, though the relationship was marginally significant ( β = 0.15, p = 0.06).
In middle-aged Japanese women without diabetes, association between AT-IR and obesity and prediabetes, although marginally significant (p=0.06), was confirmed as previously reported in adolescents, 12 15 middle-aged and elderly people with obesity. 10 13 14 16 AT-IR also showed positive associations with a broad range of cardiometabolic risk factors, including all diagnostic components of metabolic syndrome.
Number was marginally significant with higher scores for singular objects (0.97) than for plural ones (0.91; β = -1.180, z = -1.863, p = 0.06).
Although marginally significant ( P = 0.06), the random sample initiated smoking later than the convenience sample.
6 ), and the correlation between them was negative and marginally significant (r = − 0.25, p = 0.06).
Hand function We found no significant differences in the hand function test scores, except for the marginally significant improvements in the BBT scores after VR treatment (p=0.06).