Bartlett’s test was also highly significant, χ 2 (45) = 1668.659, p < 0.001, rejecting the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix and confirming that the inter-item correlations are sufficient to justify factor analysis.
Excerpts
The results of the repeated measures ANOVAs indicate that there is a highly significant effect of age (intra-subjects differences) on Word production [ F (2) = 309.430, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.805]; no significant combined effect of age x group is found [ F (2) = 0.901, p = 0.408, η 2 = 0.012]; no significant difference between groups (PT vs.
The final model, based on three variables (see Table 7 ) was clearly significant F (3,69) = 9.87, p < 0.001, and explained a relatively large portion of the variance (adjusted R 2 explaining 27% of the variance).
For instance, a mobile app that guides users in applying acupoint tapping protocols for anxiety and stress was investigated in a large-scale study including 270,461 app users and found highly significant ( p < 0.001) symptom reduction ( Church et al., 2020 ).
There was a difference between performance on the first 5 s of the SSB recordings and the last 5 s that was highly significant ( t = 8.186, p < 0.001).
There was no significant difference between being illiterate or up to grade 5 and the other categories, but a significant trend ( p < 0.001) toward a graded association between the level of education and the total IES-R scores.
Follow-up ANOVAs revealed highly significant differences on all four trait EI factors: Wellbeing, F (6,450) = 10.13, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.12; Self-control, F (6,450) = 10.13, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.16; Sociability, F (6,450) = 10.76, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.13; and Emotionality, F (6,450) = 15.70, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.13.
Crucially, a highly significant Group × Modality interaction was observed [ F (2, 697.78) = 6.68, p = 0.001], confirming that native speakers and learners employ distinct strategies in modulating global pitch range to signal sentence function.
This was confirmed by an ANOVA analysis which showed a main effect of valence ( df = 1, F = 18.05, p < 0.001), no effect of semantic category ( df = 1, F = 2.94, p > 0.1), and contrary to the other emotional parameters, a highly significant interaction between semantic valence and semantic category ( df = 1, F = 35.6, p < 0.001).
These showed moderate to strong, highly significant correlations [ r (43) = 0.48 − 0.69, p ≤ 0.001].
Not surprisingly, the main effect of serial position was highly significant in all three ANOVAs ( p < 0.001, η p 2 > 0.48).
While age and gender were not statistically associated with Romanticism, race, education, and employment were all highly significant ( p < 0.001).
The finding of nine correlations significant at p < 0.05 is highly significant ( p < 0.001) at a binomial test, and also the finding of four partial correlations significant at p < 0.05 is significant ( p < 0.02) at a binomial test.
We did detect a highly significant treatment effect in the time devoted to mate guarding using both rank-transformed ( F 3 , 109 = 11.46, p < 0.001) and winsorized data ( F 3 , 109 = 10.48, p < 0.001).
The main effect of time pressure was also significant, F (1, 151) = 12.88, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.081, indicating a highly significant difference between the time pressure group and the time delay group ( p < 0.001).
The main effect for the line length factor was highly significant, F (7,133) = 118, p < 0.001.
The relationship between Arousal and Dominance indicated a rather weak but highly significant quadratic fit, r = 0.25, p < 0.001, accounting for only 6% of the variance.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity also yielded a highly significant result (Approx. = 16,704.881; df = 861; p < 0.001), indicating that the factors were appropriately correlated for factor analysis ( Bartlett, 1950 , 1951 ).
The Mann–Whitney U test revealed a highly significant result ( z = −13.319, p < 0.001) with a large effect size, suggesting that this disparity is not only statistically robust but also practically meaningful within the study sample.
The improvements in executive at each of the 4 weeks compared to that at baseline were highly significant ( P < 0.001) in the anodal group but not in the sham group ( Table 3 ).
For the child-report sympathy scale , the main effect of time was highly significant, F (1.83,147.82) = 17.00, p < 0.001, ω 2 = 0.08, whereas the main effect of gender just fell short of significance, F (1,81) = 3.58, p < 0.07, ω 2 = 0.02.
Results Is LG-OST Effective in Reducing BII-Fear? Repeated measures MANOVA yielded a highly significant effect, F (6,34) = 15.65, p < 0.001.
This showed a highly significant, medium-sized correlation r(204) = 0.326, p < 0.001.
We crucially found that this interaction was negative and highly significant (β = 3.37, SE = 0.54, z = 6.21, p < 0.001).
The F -test with true value 0 (25.24, both for individual measurements and for mean measurements) was highly significant ( p < 0.001).