Barely Significant
← all phrases

“only marginally significant”

5,077 sentences · 5,077 papers · 5,448 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p<1.0p=0.9

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

In the literature

only marginally significantp = .0681.4× alphagold
When the boundary was after n − 1, gaze duration was longer in the dissimilar condition, than in the identical condition, but the effect was only marginally significant, b = 20, SE = 10.8, p = .068; although the same pattern was observed for first fixation duration and single fixation, this effect was not significant, p s > .2.
only marginally significantp = .0681.4× alphagold
The results showed that the nonshared GMV correlates of lack of premeditation showed stronger correlation with lack of premeditation ( r = .045, p < .001) than with sensation seeking ( r = .024, p = .009) subscore, although the difference in the slope of regression was only marginally significant ( t = 1.83, p = .068).
only marginally significantp = .0691.4× alphagold
Although the autonomy by relatedness interaction was only marginally significant for Neglect ( p = .069), the effects were in the expected direction (β = −.17, t = 1.64, p = .10, 95% CI = [–0.3658, 0.0339] for low levels of autonomy vs. β = −.42, t = 2.61, p = .01, 95% CI = [–0.7360, –0.1026] for high levels of autonomy).
only marginally significantp = 0.0691.4× alphagold
Strikingly, even when patients were producing the subject of a passive sentence, we detected numerically more objects (i.e., incongruent detections) than subjects (congruent), although this difference was only marginally significant ( χ 2 (1) = 2.210, p = 0.069, difference in proportions = 0.010, 95% CI = [ −0.001, 1], one-sided Test of Equal Proportions).
only marginally significantp = 0.0691.4× alphagold
The statistical analysis showed that the number of dimensions in the final stepwise DFA was lower in the bilingual model than in the monolingual model, although this was only marginally significant [5.97 < 7.00, t (5) = 2.31, p = 0.069].
Bilingual Object Naming: A Connectionist Model.
Front Psychol · 2016 · PMC4860466