A main effect for time was observed (p < .05) suggesting that both groups appeared to increase in reports of EQ over time, with only a marginally significant increase in total EQ for that was greater for the intervention group, as revealed in the Condition by Time interaction (p <.10).
← all phrases
“marginally significant”
Sighted at
p>=0.1
In the literature
The experimental group Metapholio had marginally significant lower mean values at the pretest than the control group for the subscales effort expectancy (-0.53, p < .10) and facilitating conditions (-0.51, p < .10).
Additionally, a one-unit increase in disengagement coping was associated with a marginally significant decrease in COVID-19 worries by a 0.777 unit while holding other variables constant ( p ≤ 0.10).
Having had an HIV test and PrEP stigma were marginally significant (p< 0.10) in DC.
For sentences with a missing VP2, the contrast between main and embedded S1 clause was marginally significant (33 vs. 41%, z = 1.65, p = 0.10). 5.3.
Further analysis showed significant positive correlations between PA and NO 2 ( p < 0.05) and a marginally significant correlation with the abundance of HNFs ( p < 0.1; Table 1 ).
Logistic multivariate analysis of HT after IVT The predictors with marginally significant difference ( p < 0.1) in univariate analysis were estimated using binary logistic regression analysis, as shown in Tables 2 and 3 .
Bivariate analysis focused on identifying covariates that showed at least a marginally significant (p-value ≤ 0.10) association with SEQ-12 score.
However, the difference in estimates between White and Latinx people was marginally significant ( p < 0.10), and the estimates for the other two races did not differ significantly from that of White people.
Variables significantly associated with the outcome and those that were marginally significant ( p < .10) in univariate analysis were included in multivariate analysis.
Temperature z-score has a small positive effect, 0.08 ( p < .05), and precipitation z-score has a positive and marginally significant effect, 0.14 ( p < .10), on the log of the expected count of the ideal number of children.
To determine independent predictors for MACE, a multivariate Cox regression analysis was developed with the significant predictors ( P < 0.05) and the marginally significant ones ( P < 0.10) from the univariate model. 3.
The three-way perm-ANOVA analyses showed that region had a significant ( P < 0.05) effect, while lifestyle (FL versus PA) had a marginally significant ( P < 0.1) effect, and layer had no significant effect on community richness ( Fig. 1B ) ( Table S4 ).
The moderating effects were statistically significant if the standardized coefficients of the interaction terms were significant ( p < 0.05) or marginally significant ( p < 0.10).
There were two variables with a marginally significant ( p ≤ 0.10) association with condoms use at last sex: having sex with more than one sexual partner (AOR 3.38; 95% CI 0.87, 13.10) and speaking to at least one sex partner about HIV testing (AOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.14, 1.02).
Potential predictors are defined as variables with at least a marginally significant association (p<0.10) with the outcome.
Substitution effect on face-to-face contact frequency Column 4 of Table 5 shows a marginally significant negative association between internet usage and face-to-face contact frequency (Column 4: β = −0.279, SE = 0.160, p < .1).
A marginally significant association ( p < 0.10) was found for non-small cell carcinoma (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99–1.11).
The longitudinal association between extraversion and sick leave days was marginally significant ( p < 0.10).
Model 3 included both IF-based social capital and CS-based social capital and all covariates which were marginally significant ( p < 0.1) in the respective univariate analysis.
However, reductions in sexual IPV and severe physical/sexual IPV at endline among the women with disabilities had point estimates identical to those for women without disabilities, and remained marginally significant at the p<0.10 level.
While parents of children in the younger age group had marginally significant higher abuse scores at T1, t (181.83) = − 1.66, p = 0.10, d = 0.24, parents in both child age groups did not differ in abuse risk at T2.
AGC 74.7, p = 0.0674) was marginally significant ( p < 0.10), and the best/worst difference in surgeon 2 ( p = 0.3960) was not significant.
All results were considered significant with P ≤ 0.05 and marginally significant with P ≤ 0.10.
Elemental status in the kidney did not reveal any direct or indirect linkages to BCS and only a marginally significant ( p <0.1) association between elemental status and serum protein status was detected (Fig. 6 ).