Excerpts

The age variable demonstrated marginal significance in the linear model ( β = −0.091, p = 0.083), with a negative coefficient suggesting that effects may decrease with increasing age.

Sixthly, in collective management, the inter-group effect at the pretest is marginally significant ( F = 3.126, p = 0.083, η 2 = 0.053), while the inter-group effect at the posttest is significant ( F = 12.108, p = 0.001, η 2 = 0.178), with the experimental group (23.97 ± 1.35) showing significantly higher collective management than the control group (22.61 ± 1.56).

For career control, the group × time interaction was not significant and the main effect of group was marginal significance [ F (2, 78) = 2.564, p = 0.083, Partial η 2 = 0.062].

The ANOVA for N170 amplitude revealed a marginally significant main effect of facial expression, F (2,68) = 2.60, p = 0.083, ε = 0.971, η p 2 = 0.07, indicating that N170 amplitude was slightly larger for disgusted faces than for neutral faces ( p = 0.064).

Statistically significant differences are found in two of the five factors: Influence of the Performance Evaluation ( p = 0.030; d = −0.389) and Mental Skills ( p = 0.030; d = −0.788); and there is a marginal significance in Stress Control ( p = 0.083; d = −0.234).

The experience of being left-behind did not reach statistical significance in either group ( p > 0.05), although the odds ratio showed an increasing trend with the severity of anxiety (OR = 1.44, p = 0.083 for the moderate-to-severe group).

TBLs and MLs were not significantly different, although there was a slight tendency toward significance ( p = 0.083).

There was a marginally significant difference for V3, F (7, 1) = 4.082, p = 0.083.

Although the main effect of Time was highly significant ( F = 100.403, p < 0.001), the main effect of Group was only marginally significant ( p = 0.084).

For parent self-esteem, multivariate tests show a marginally significant effect of Time, F (1,49) = 3.10, p = 0.084, η p 2 = 0.06, a significant main interaction effect of Time × Group, F (2,56) = 5.19, p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.17, and a non-significant main effect of Group ( p > 0.05).

An explicit warning to discount repetitions slightly increased the baseline-contrast score to a marginally significant level, M = +7.97, SD = 26.94 [-1.14; 17.08], t (35) = 1.78, d = 0.60, p = 0.084.

Due to the restricted reliability of this single-item measure, though, both the repetition-contrast, M = +12.42, SD = 58.01 [-0.17; 25.01], t (83) = 1.96, d = 0.43, p = 0.053, and the baseline contrast M = +9.78, SD = 51.37 [-1.37; 20.93], fell short of significance, t (83) = 1.75, d = 0.38, p = 0.084.

Although Worry showed a marginal trend at the 1-month mark ( p = 0.084) in re-admitted patients, this difference dissipated by the end of the 12-month follow-up.

Pearson’s correlations were significantly negative in the rotation span ( r = −0.505, p = 0.004, R 2 = 0.255) as well as the reading span ( r = −0.409, p = 0.008, R 2 = 0.167), while the correlation only approached significance in the symmetry span ( r = −0.322, p = 0.084, R 2 = 0.104).

In the model with red meat consumption as the dependent variable, the interaction between pre-test meat consumption and condition was significant, F (3, 125) = 3.08, p = 0.03, η 2 = 0.07, while the interaction between pre-test intention and condition approached significance, F (3, 125) = 2.27, p = 0.084, η 2 = 0.052.

There is a trend toward significance for the interaction between modality, adaptation phase and odor, F (3, 94) = 2.282, p = 0.084, η 2 = 0.068.

high = 0.24, p = 0.116), but the difference was only marginally significant ( z -value Δ = 1.38, p = 0.084).

RESULTS CHANGE FROM BASELINE IN EEG-BASED VIGILANCE SCORE Among participants in the “rest” group, the difference in mean vigilance score between the baseline and the 15-minute rest scans was found to be mildly significant ( M = 1.12, SD = 0.02 in the 5-minute scan; M = 1.13, SD = 0.02 in the 15-minute scan; t (14) = -1.86, p = 0.084).

The RT results showed a significant main effect of the consistency (β = 38.92, t = 3.69, p < 0.001), a marginally significant effect of imageability (β = 18.38, t = 1.74, p = 0.084), and non-significant interaction between consistency and imageability (β = 6.27, t = 0.30, p = 0.767).

The incongruence/fit effect a 4 tended toward significance ( a 4 = 0.466, p = 0.084), indicating that increasing heterogeneity in relationship quality goes along with increased depersonalization.

Regarding correlations between the neural integration and reading-related cognitive-linguistic skills, the left STC was negatively associated with RAN in controls ( r = −0.479, p = 0.038) and showed a trend positively correlated with RAN in dyslexics ( r = 0.394, p = 0.085, marginally significant).

difficult, the main effect of time point was marginally significant, F (3) = 2.37, p = 0.085, although a planned contrast revealed that mothers reported less ease of virtual visits at 12 months ( M = 2.43, SD = 1.28) compared with maternal reports at the other three time points combined (3 months: M = 1.69, SD = 0.85; 6 months: M = 1.33, SD = 0.52; 9 months: M = 1.64, SD = 0.92), t (40) = 2.65, p = 0.011.

The results indicated that in Chinese babble, the assimilators performed better than the convergers ( p = 0.047), and the divergers were better to a certain extent than the convergers (marginally significant, p = 0.085).

3.3 Enjoyment 3.3.1 Flow short scale Flow experience was initially high (5.18 ± 1.04 out of 7) in questionnaire trial 1 (Q1) and it increased marginally significant over time ( p = 0 . 085 , n g 2 = 0 . 04 ).

It was found that the students’ perceived level of writing skills significantly predicted their flow experience ( β = 0.151, p < 0.000, see Table 4 for more detail) while their perceived level of challenges of the writing task did not significantly (although almost significantly) predicted their flow experience as well ( β = −0.043, p < 0.085).