Excerpts

The final model showed that Wilks’ lambda, as a test of discriminant function, was highly significant (λ = 0.837; χ 2 = 25.6 df = 1, p < 0.001) and the only selected variable was WIS with a canonical discriminant coefficient of 0.763.

A two-way mixed-measures analysis of variance indicated that there was a highly significant effect of administration condition on MIST total score, F (1,50) = 31.81, MSE = 14.065, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.389.

HPES groups) two-way ANOVA on CPCN after priming revealed that the main effect for Priming was not significant ( F < 1), whereas the main effect for Explanatory Style was highly significant, F (1,110) = 15.19, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.121.

Moreover, the direct effect of boredom on the time judgment remained highly significant even when other mediating factors were entered into the mediation model (Model 1, Figure 6A ) [direct effect = −0.31, SE = 0.297, t = −10.27, p < 0.001, 95% CIs (−0.36, −0.25)].

The coefficient is negative and highly significant (β = −0.220, p < 0.001).

The striking difference between the groups (Figure 2 and Table 2 ) is the lower accuracy of high-PRVS participants, and this effect is highly significant [low-PRVS = 97.3, high-PRVS = 94.1, F (1, 26) = 16.010, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.381].

Bartlett’s measure was also highly significant ( p < 0.001).

These variables are: firstly, the relationship with socially maladjusted peers, which has a positive and highly significant effect on the duration of child welfare trajectories ( β = 0.459, p < 0.001); it is followed by the school disengagement variable showing a direct and significant effect on the duration of the experience in the child welfare system ( β = 0.362, p < 0.05), followed, in third place, by the drug use variable, which was shown to have a direct effect on drug use ( β = 0.204, p < 0.01) on the number of programs in the child welfare system in which young people have participated. 4.

Senior Executive) was highly significant ( z = −5.61, p < 0.001), whereas the same pairwise comparison at three Triad talents did not reach significance ( z = 1.24, p = 0.21).

Although figurativeness also appears as a significant factor in this full analysis ( b = 0.046, p < 0.05), a highly significant interaction between language and figurativeness ( b = −0.050, p < 0.001) motivates a split of the data naturally presented in this paper in each of the two experiments.

The hypotheses postulating direct effects of Ethical Leadership (EL) showed highly significant t-values: EL → EMI ( t = 15.746, p < 0.001, β = 0.587), EL → EC ( t = 12.021, p < 0.001, β = 0.546), EL → AC ( t = 6.398, p < 0.001, β = 0.339), EL → WH ( t = 7.378, p < 0.001, β = 0.362), and EL → WREP ( t = 4.770, p < 0.001, β = 0.291), confirming that Ethical Leadership (EL) constitutes a fundamental social resource that drives both motivational states and objective dimensions.

Test-retest reliabilities were highly significant across AOM timepoints for the risk perception index ( r = 0.814, p < 0.001).

Highly significant positive correlations were found between EE and both EOE ( r = 0.35, p = 0.001) and LST ( r = 0.30, p = 0.003).

simulation) was highly significant ( p < 0.001) with a moderate effect (Cohen's d = 0.53).

A probability of p < 0.10 was considered as marginally significant, of p < 0.05 as significant, of p < 0.01 as highly significant and of p < 0.001 as extremely significant.

The ANOVA yielded a highly significant result, F (2, 114) = 50.66, p < 0.001, indicating that the magnitude of change in authenticity perceptions varied substantially by source.

The ANOVA result remained highly significant ( p < 0.001) when considering the valence dimension as well.

Identity Priming Effects For response latency, as expected, the effect of Prime type was highly significant ( t = 9.58, p < 0.001).

While body image flexibility could not be tested in the multiple logistic regression models due to multicollinearity issues, they were highly significant ( p < 0.001) in the simple logistic regression analyses for both EE and CR.

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis ( KMO = 0.83, p < 0.001), and Bartlett's test of sphericity was highly significant (χ 2 = 1087.42, p < 0.001).

At the same time, Pearson correlation analysis revealed that the correlation value between each item and the total score of the scale was between 0.40 and 0.46, which was also extremely significant ( p < 0.001).

While this difference was only significant for one cohort (those with BSEs 1998–2001), if we combined the four cohorts 1995–2009, the overall gender difference is highly significant ( p = 0.001).

A paired Wilcoxon Rank test demonstrated that this difference is highly significant (W = 40.5, p < 0.001). 5.2.1.

Notice that the correlation between these variables is highly significant: AOA Catalan and Catalan proficiency ( r = −0.4, P < 0.001, later exposition to Catalan, decreased proficiency in Catalan) and AOA Catalan and Language use ( r = 0.53, P < 0.002, delayed onset of Catalan exposition, greater use of Spanish).

In particular, all aspects of achievement motivation exhibit highly significant gender differences ( p < 0.001), with a moderate impact size.