Increasing systematicity leads to better selection decisions: Evidence from a computer paradigm for evaluating selection tools.

PLoS One · 2017 · PMC5440047 · PMID 28542456

Europe PMC DOI

hedged sentences

0.0100

closest p · 0.2× alpha

0.0730

boldest claim

The sentences

just barely significantp < .01actually significant

For the unsystematic condition, this difference was just barely significant, t (64) = 2.880, p < .01, d = 0.12, while it was larger for the somewhat systematic condition, t (64) = 6.347, p < .01, d = 0.78 and comparatively large for the highly systematic condition t (128) = 15.921, p < .01, d = 1.41.

also in 26 other papers

marginally significantp = .073so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

The difference between the highly systematic condition and the unsystematic condition was clearly significant ( p < .001) even after controlling for reading time, whereas the difference between the highly systematic and the somewhat systematic condition was marginally significant ( p = .073).

also in 26,082 other papers

clearly significantno p-value reported

Although the remaining difference was smaller, F (2, 252) = 6.649, p < .01, it was still clearly significant.

also in 627 other papers

Quoted from the open-access full text in Europe PMC under the licence the publisher applied. The sentence is reproduced exactly as published; the emphasis is ours.