“marginally significant”

This comparison was always made if the effect of “repetition”, “phase”, or their interaction was marginally significant p ≤ 0.1 in the ANOVA.

Differences were considered as statistically significant with P ≤ 0.05 and as marginally significant with P ≤ 0.1.

All results with α < 0.05 were accepted as statistically significant; marginally significant results ( p < 0.1; i.e., α < 0.10) are also mentioned.

Only pairs with a significant ( P < 0.05) or marginally significant ( P < 0.1) difference are shown.

However, due to small sample size at hand, we also reported marginally significant effects with p < 0.1.

Although the main effect of the channel was not significant ( F [1, 26] = 0.15, p = .70, η 2 p = .01), the main effect of emotional valence was marginally significant ( F [1, 26] = 3.93, p < .10, η 2 p = .13).

Results were considered marginally significant for 0.05 < P ≤ 0.1.

all social-level predictors, neighbourhood-level predictors, etc.) and retained in the next model when marginally significant ( P < 0·10).

All hypotheses were tested two-sided, but we also report marginally significant effects ( p < .1) that would be significant if we tested one-sided.

There was a marginally significant effect on the attention/impulsivity subscale of the Assessor Report ( b =0.07, S.E. =0.04, p< 0.10).

Regarding H4, a marginally significant ( p < 0.10) and positive relationship was found between perceived usefulness and students’ satisfaction (b = 0.205, p = 0.051) thus supporting H4.

Sleeping in a risky place and having a previous diagnosis of diabetes were marginally significant at the p<0.10 level.

Moreover, a marginally significant correlation (r = −0.425, p<0.10) between planktivory of yellow catfish and zooplankton biomass was also found in this study.

We did not use a strict stay criterion for identifying predictors in the multivariate model; predictors were included in the multivariate model if they were marginally significant in the univariate model (p<0.10), clinically important, or strongly prognostic.

Similarly, memory function showed a marginally significant improvement among males (DID coefficient = 0.364, p < 0.10), whereas females exhibited a smaller, non-significant gain (DID coefficient = 0.124).

Results of the latent growth model support H3 by showing that customer-serving motive attributions have a significant negative effect on the latent slope of customer satisfaction (H3a: β 22 = –0.126, p < 0.01) and a marginally significant negative effect on the latent slope of willingness to pay more (H3b: β 24 = –0.054, p < 0.10, two-tailed).

Both the left medial frontal gyrus and left inferior parietal lobe displayed marginally significant (0.05< p <0.10) correlation with the number of depressive episodes.

Variables that were at least marginally significant ( p < .10) at the bivariate level were included in each model.

Variables that had a marginally significant relationship with PNC utilisation ( p < 0.1) were considered for the final model.

A marginally significant effect was observed for PMH [ F (2,42) = 2.40, P < 0.10, η 2 = 0.11], with a trend between vulnerabilities (M = 12.47) and resources (M = 2.20) profiles ( P < 0.10).

Small and marginally significant associations were found between PTQ and backward inhibition ( r = −0.18, p = 0.10) and switch cost ( r = 0.21, p = 0.07).

For instance, higher levels of structural–associational solidarity were associated with a slightly higher probability of expecting filial care at a marginally significant level ( p < 0.1).

Marginally significant differences (.05 > P < .10) were seen in the period of SCCA diagnosis in both men and women, where those diagnosed in the most recent period (2008-2012) had a lower risk of death than their counterparts diagnosed in the initial study period (2000-2007) (RER men , 0.48, 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.01; RER women , 0.68, 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.03).

Removing each plant species and repeating the regression analyses showed that the slope parameters were consistently negative, but only four of eight models were at least marginally significant ( P < 0.10).

While the association in the unadjusted model (Model 1) was marginally significant for the continuous variable (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.97–1.52; P = 0.100), it became statistically significant in Model 2 (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.03–1.67; P = 0.028) and reached its strongest significance in the fully adjusted Model 3 (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.14–2.04; P = 0.005).