“practically significant”

Imagine processing time The image processing time for SABRE had statistically and practically significant savings over the manual method (p < 0.0001): S1A/S2 1.2 ± .08 hours per subject vs.

The statistically and practically significant differences in baseline characteristics amongst the participant categories were as expected for age ( p < 0.0001), disease duration ( p < 0.0001), ever smoker ( p = 0.0020), pack years ( p = 0.0003), antifibrotic treatment ( p < 0.0001), and immunosuppressive treatment ( p = 0.0003).

A standardized partial regression coefficient (r p ) of >0.15 was considered practically significant, corresponding to P < 0.0001 with a large sample size of approximately 1500.

The curve estimation analysis models (linear, quadratic and cubic) which explained practically significant overall malaria trend reduction across the years were used (each models showed; R 2 = 0.85, P < 0.001).

The context preference for dDMRs in the flag leaf was practically significant (IR64: Cramer’s V = 0.44, X 2 = 873.53, p < 0.001; N22: Cramer’s V = 0.637, X 2 = 273.18, p < 0.001).

The voluntary compliance rate of hunters who received an ammunition voucher was 27.7% higher than hunters who did not receive a voucher; a difference that is strongly statistically and practically significant ( t 915 = 16.73, p < .001; Cohen’s d = 1.106).

However, the athletes in the current study were still able to obtain statistically and practically significant ( p = 0.001, d = 0.74) improvements in only 2 weeks.

This difference was statistically and practically significant with a p -value of <0.001 and a moderate effect size (Cohen's d = 0.62).

The results of the analysis indicated that there was a practically significant effect of the crisis: The parameter representing an immediate change in the post-event level was b 2 = 8.66, p < 0.001.

With respect to the How Confident section, the seven-factor model demonstrated a statistically and practically significant improvement in model fit as compared to the five-factor model, Δχ 2 (11) = 2645.780, p < 0.001, ΔTLI = 0.041; first six-factor model (A), Δχ 2 (6) = 958.617, p < 0.001, ΔTLI = 0.013; and second six-factor model (B), Δχ 2 (6) = 1969.970, p < 0.001, ΔTLI = 0.031.

A relatively high percentages of teachers perceived “relationship with co-workers” as a main stressor (8.3–16.8%), and the association with stress responses was practically significant in all job positions (Φ = 0.112–0.155, p < 0.001).

The differences between men and women were statistically and practically significant, with academic stress 0.34 SDs higher for cis women ( p = 0.004) and illness stress 0.51 SDs higher ( p < 0.001).

Overall, regardless of sex, the group with most DS (10,163 steps/day on average) reached both statistically and practically significant fewer steps/day than did the group with fewest DS (12,319 steps/day on average), (F (3,588) = 3.76, p = .011, η p 2 = 0.019).

However, distant metastases were practically significant ( p = 0.037).

Although the p -value for precision (0.098) did not reach statistical significance—likely due to limited sample size—the latency increase ( p = 0.0399, d = 1.43) was both statistically and practically significant.

Statistically and practically significant differences ( p ≤ 0.050; d = 0.49–1.32) in CMJ-PF were evident between teams.

H1 and H2 The differences between experimental conditions are both statistically and practically significant ( p < .05 and ES > 0.20) for both TOHI subscales.

An item was flagged as exhibiting practically significant DIF if both (a) the omnibus Wald test demonstrated a p -value < 0.05 after Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate correction (i.e., p FDR < 0.05) and (b) the ESSD effect size was greater than 0.5, indicating a “medium” or larger amount of DIF ( Meade, 2010 ).

A moderate practically significant positive correlation (r = 0.43, p < 0.05) emerged between process and product measures of the jumping skill, with the arm action reflecting the strongest correlation (r = 0.28 and r = 0.23 in both trails).

Differences in responding were considered practically significant at a logit difference of at least 0.30, and results of Rasch-Welch t -tests were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05 (Linacre, 2013 ).

We considered any difference from neutral as practically significant and considered p -values of < 0.05 as statistically significant.

We considered a difference from neutral as practically significant and a p -value of < 0.05 as statistically significant.

The main effect of exposure duration was practically significant [ F (1, 17) = 4.38, p = 0.0516]; performance was better with the longer than shorter exposure duration.

All the correlations were statistically and practically significant for SBP with the anthropometric and physiological characteristics except for WHR ( r = 0.064; p = 0.059).

Results: The 6MWD increased in the pranayama group (least square mean [95% CI] = 28 m [–5 to 61]) and decreased in the control group (–15 m [–47 to 16]), indicating a practically significant treatment effect ( P = 0.06) in favor of pranayama.