“marginally significant”

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.

The Distributive Justice × Procedural Justice interaction was marginally significant on voluntary tax compliance ( p = 0.06).

The results indicated only a marginally significant difference in the pain/discomfort score in the EOSQ-24 (p = 0.060), indicating that patients with a growth mindset scored higher in this dimension.

We found a marginally significant main effect (β = 0.16, SE = 0.09, p = 0.06): mothers who spent more time engaging in maternal behaviors also had higher levels of baseline cortisol over weeks 1 and 2.

The facilitation effect at the 2000 ms SOA for incongruent trials was marginally significant [ t (9) = 2.14, p =.06, r = 0.58].

Adherence to food supplement varied by micronutrient supplementation groups with marginal level of significance, 76, 74 and 78 packages, ( P = 0.05), as expected, varied by food supplementation groups ( P < 0.01) and the interaction between food and micronutrient groups was marginally significant ( P = 0.06).

A significant pooled effect size (SMD = 0.72, p < 0.001) was evident in healthy individuals, whereas a higher but marginally significant effect (SMD = 0.95, p = 0.06) was observed in non-healthy individuals.

For the luminance values, there was no main effect of transparency, F (1,49) = 0.06, p = .8, and no interaction, F (1,49) = 2.01, p = .16, but a marginally significant main effect of colour dominance, F (1,49) = 3.61, p = .06.

The difference between the effect of healthiness scores on sustainability ratings and the effect of sustainability scores on healthiness ratings (H 3 ) The z‐test testing whether there is a difference between the effect of healthiness scores on sustainability ratings ( r = .19) and the effect of sustainability scores on healthiness ratings ( r = .11) was marginally significant (z = 1.55, p = .06).

However, the interaction was marginally significant for task by block ( F [1.61] = 3.67, P = .060, η 2 = 0.06), suggesting that this result can be due to the performance from A1 to A4 in the virtual task (1161–889 ms, respectively) and not in the real task (193–154 ms, respectively), according to the post-hoc test. 3.4 Variable error The pattern of VEs during acquisition is depicted in Figure 6 .

Calculation of Pearson correlations indicated that changes in the factor scores for conviction were not significantly correlated with baseline values of the JTC factor, r = .03 ( p = .65) and r = .04 ( p = .56), for the changes between 0 and 3 months and between 0 and 12 months, respectively, or the belief flexibility factor for the change between 0 and 12 months, r = −0.04 ( p = .52), though the correlation between baseline belief flexibility and change in conviction in the first three months was marginally significant, r = −0.13 ( p < .06).

friend lower rating) on the N400 amplitude revealed a marginally significant main effect of direction, with the friend higher condition eliciting a more negative N400 than the friend lower condition, F (1, 32) = 3.90, P = 0.06 ( Fig. 2B ).

Regarding t2, only a marginally significant difference between the depressed participants ( M = 5.90, SD = 2.05) and healthy controls could be shown, t (110) = 1.54, p = 0.06, d = 0.29.

In 2021, ‘Annuals’ in conservation agriculture exhibited a marginally significant ( P = 0.06) lower Moran's I value (0.03) compared to conventional agriculture (0.13), with smaller, more dispersed weed patches under conservation management and larger, well‐defined clusters under conventional management.

Total caloric intake was marginally significant (p < 0.06) between children of single-parent households (1910 ± 24) and dual-parent households (1,860 ± 25).

B2B2 is marginally significant dedicator (P=0.06).

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).

Parent specific effects were not found in our sample, a GLM including parent (father/mother) as additional factor did not show a significant effect for parent , ( F (1,45) = 0.099, p = 0.75), while the main effect group and the interaction effect group × parenting style remained unchanged; the marginally significant main effect parenting style was not significant anymore, p = 0.06, due to model complexity.

The LMEs for the language-unimpaired group showed a marginally significant effect for the local-to-global cost only (Estimate: −71.09, SE: 6.81, t = −7.87, p = .06).

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%).

The results of the robust regression analyses have shown that the relationship between SLA and the mean daily temperature (Logged air temperature, T L ) was generally non-significant, with the exception of a marginally significant association with T L in the summer (b = 4.2954, p < 0.06).

The effect of prime type was marginally significant for words, F (1.89,39.78) = 3.08, p = 0.060, but significant for pseudowords, F (1.80,37.85) = 7.14, p = 0.003.

We then explored the relationship between participants’ harmony scores and the PSS; the correlation between the D score and PSS was significant ( r (49) = −0.41, p < 0.01), and the correlation between the Harmony Scale score and PSS was marginally significant ( r (49) = −0.27, p = 0.06).

Team based programmes were associated with a marginally significant decrease in abstinence at 12 months of 4.3 points relative to individual programmes (95% confidence interval −8.8 to 0.2, P=0.06), and $40 bonus programmes increased abstinence by 8.5 points relative to no bonus programmes (2.8 to 14.1, P=0.003).

When deleting the study by Fortune et al, 20 Piaserico et al, 25 or Singh et al, 26 the pooled estimate became marginally significant ( P =0.06–0.07).