Excerpts

There was also a trend toward significance in the beta band (peak frequency 15–29 ± 2 Hz; WSR, p = 0.099, Z = -1.647; Hits: Mean = 0.99, SEM = 0.01 μV 2 ; Misses: Mean = 1.03, SEM = 0.02 μV 2 ).

The main effect of Predictive Cue did not quite reach significance for repeated nouns (β = −0.33, SE = 0.20, z = −1.65, p = 0.099), suggesting that the facilitation for a repeated noun from a L+H* predictive cue is merely numeric.

There was no significant difference between sides [ F (1,19) = 0.732, p = 0.403, η p 2 = 0.037] but a marginally significant interaction between condition and side [ F (2,38) = 2.650, p = 0.099, η p 2 = 0.122].

However, when we changed our analytical approach and controlled for baseline variance in BDI scores in an ANCOVA, the combination of both treatment groups, relative to the control group, had a marginally significant effect on BDI scores at T2, F (1, 70) = 2.78, p = 0.099, partial η 2 = 0.038.

With a linear mixed-effects model we find that the measured χ 2 statistics are affected by generation, with a small effect which is marginally significant ( b = 3.314 ± 1.962 SEM, P = 0.099), where this value increases on average by 3.3 for each generation.

Regarding gender differences, the relationship between resilience and the percentage of males was marginally significant, Q model = 2.719, df = 1, p = 0.099.

Repeated-measures ANOVA in the midline analysis revealed a marginally significant effect of condition F (2,46) = 2.34, 0.05 < p < 0.1.

There was a marginally significant improvement [ M = 3.56, SD = 0.86, p < 0.1] in the therapists' perceptions in terms of therapeutic openness/involvement of the father by comparison to control group A.

In line with H5, we observe a marginally significant interaction effect of error risk taking and perceived organizational innovation climate (β = 0.16, p < 0.1, 95% CI [−0.00, 0.32]).

Although this change fell short of significance ( p = 0.10 using a conservative one-tailed t -test, d = 0.41 β = 0.237), the finding does justify further scrutiny.

Fully saturated correlation and regression models were examined; paths that did not achieve at least marginal significance ( p < 0.10) were removed to create final models.

In a similar vein to other measures, only positive affect was shown to be marginally significant [F (1, 75) = 3.84, p < 0.1] among covariates [F negativeaffect (1, 75) =2.60, p > 0.1; F self−efficacy (1, 75) <1, p > 0.01].

We report below eye-tracking measures presenting statistically significant fixed effects of typicality, pronoun , and typicality*pronoun ( p < 0.05), and corresponding significant or marginally significant ( p < 0.1) results of contrast analyses, separated for measure.

The effect of physicality on user cognitive trust only reaches marginal significance ( p <0.10) when considering the moderating role of users' familiarity with IVIS.

In Model 1, hypotheses M 1 H1 and M 1 H2 were rejected, indicating that spectator satisfaction and trust have no significant direct effects on loyalty; M 1 H3, M 1 H4, M 1 H5, and M 1 H6 were supported, indicating that spectator satisfaction significantly predicts trust and team identification, team identification significantly predicts loyalty, and trust has a weak but meaningful direct effect on team identification (marginally significant at p < 0.10).

When expressed in the number of words, the effect of L anguage on prosodic phrase length is marginally significant [ χ 2 (1) = 2.88, p < 0.1], with phrases in English longer by 0.43 word on average (± 0.13 standard errors).

Focus is placed on those constructs achieving at least marginal significance ( p ≤ 0.10) and hence the largest relative effect as this is a small sample and the intention of the analysis is hypothesis generation.

The effect was slightly significant [ F (1,61) = 3.382, p < 0.1].

The effect of product type × reward type was significant [ F (1, 288) = 12.99, p < 0.001]; that of product type × gender was insignificant [ F (1, 288) = 0.26, ns]; and that of reward type × gender was marginally significant [ F (1, 288) = 3.85, p < 0.1].

Students majoring in engineering/physics were also found to have lower perceptions of caring but the effect was only marginally significant (β = −0.103, p < 0.10).

With regard to indirect relations, working memory as a foundational cognitive skill had only a marginally significant indirect relation with later reading comprehension via mental state language (β = 0.05, p < 0.10) and metacognitive knowledge (β = 0.05, p < 0.10).

To examine learning condition differences (collapsed across age groups 3 ), a Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test was conducted, revealing a slight trend toward a significant difference in the total number of questions asked between the learning conditions, X 2 (2) = 4.56, p = 0.10.

Unfortunately, there was no significant reduction found in willingness or capacity, although there was a trend toward significance for slight image creation and image protection ( p < 0.10).

The first model for which all AUs helped predict at least a marginally significant ( p < 0.10) variance in the dependent variable emotion/appraisal was selected as the final model.

For low RetirPlan, an unexpected increase in RetirIntent was also observed, although it was only marginally significant [ F (1,203) = 2.72, p = 0.10].