Barely Significant
← all phrases

“marginally significant”

26,083 sentences · 26,083 papers · 36,483 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p>=0.1

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

In the literature

marginally significantP = 0.091.8× alphagold
A repeated-measures ANOVA with violation (violation or no-violation) and response (“old” or “similar”) revealed an interaction between violation and response (marginally significant in experiment 1: F (1,27) = 3.05, P = 0.09; η p 2 = 0.1, and significant in experiment 2 that involved stronger predictions and violations: F (1,27) = 5.59, P = 0.024; η p 2 = 0.17).
marginally significantp = 0.091.8× alphagold
30.9 ± 11.5 years; two-tailed p = 0.55) was not significantly different between males and females in our sample population, there were marginally significant sex differences in BMI (26.2 ± 4.4 vs. 23.5 ± 4.2 kg/m 2 ; two-tailed p = 0.09), and BFP (20.4 ± 10.0 vs. 26.8 ± 9.1 percent; two-tailed p = 0.07), such that males appeared to have higher average BMI and lower average BFP.
marginally significantp = 0.091.8× alphagold
Push) ANOVA indicated a marginally significant Two-Way interaction [ F (1, 49) = 2.93, p = 0.09, η 2 p = 0.057]: Pulling the lever with positive words was a little faster [ t (49) = 1.054, p = 0.297.] than pushing, whereas pulling the lever with negative words [ t (49) = 1.742, p = 0.088] was slower than pushing.
marginally significantp = 0.091.8× alphagold
Results From baseline to the completion of the 8-week MBSR program, we observed significant increases in resilience ( d = 0.60, p = 0.005), and quality of life ( d = 0.92, p = 0.002), and significant reductions in symptoms of depression ( d = − 1.17, p < 0.0001), anxiety ( d = − 0.87, p < 0.0001), insomnia ( d = − 0.58, p = 0.006), and marginally significant reduction in perceived stress ( d = − 0.40, p = 0.09).
marginally significantp = .091.8× alphagold
Items were rated on a scale from 0 = not at all to 10 = extremely , with AWARE participants showing a significant positive difference in their readiness to reduce/quit their use ( p = .02; d = 0.32) and confidence in their ability to reduce/quit their use ( p = .02, d = 0.36), as well as a marginally significant positive difference in the importance of reducing/quitting their use ( p = .09, d = 0.24), compared to control participants.
marginally significantp = 0.091.8× alphagold
Based on logistic regression, the effect of conspecific density on the probability of mortality differed by species: brown shrimp exhibited a marginally significant trend towards D-D mortality when also accounting for shrimp size ( p = 0.09) while white shrimp did not exhibit density-dependence ( p = 0.58; Fig 5 ).