Differences among SE profiles The results of the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA between the clusters according to levels of SE showed that there were highly significant differences ( p ≤ 0.001) in all the variables studied (family, teachers and peer support, as well as in academic performance in mathematics and language), although with different effect sizes: family support factor [χ 2 (2) = 155.8, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.296]; teacher’s support factor [χ 2 (2) = 228.5, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.434]; peers [χ 2 (2) = 98.8, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.188]; academic performance in language [χ 2 (2) = 53.2, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.101]; and in mathematics [χ 2 (2) = 48.1, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.091].
Excerpts
SCAT-A scores also showed a significant trend toward lower scores with longer years of competition [the shortest group: 20.5 (4.2), the longest group: 18.5 (4.3), p < 0.001 for trend].
There was no significant effect when the target was a no-onset item, F < 1, but a highly significant effect when the target was an onset, F (4, 84) = 16.18, p < 0.001: RTs increased on average by 103 ms from one onset to six onsets.
Bartlet’s test of sphericity was highly significant at p < 0.001, indicating that the data were appropriate for PCA.
These results were confirmed by a mixed ANOVA on the Fisher-z-transformed correlation values, for which the interaction of within-participant (rating dimension) and between-participant factor (across-group comparison) became highly significant [ F (22,32967) = 1781.268, p < 0.001, n2 = 0.178].
Additionally, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which compares our correlation matrices to an identity matrix, yielded highly significant results (x 2 = 551684.56, p < 0.001).
The factor loading of each measurement item was highly significant ( p < 0.001), ranging from 0.670 to 0.845, which indicates the unidimensionality of the measures.
In the repeated-measures analysis of variance of ATEC scores, the main effect of group was not significant ( p > 0.05), but the main effect of the number of measurements and the interaction were extremely significant ( p < 0.001).
The chi-square difference is 1,097,469 with 15 degrees of freedom which is highly significant ( p < 0.001).
In this model, the direct effect of moral context on intentionality ( b = 1.74, SE = 0.26, p < 0.001) was approximately halved, yet remained highly significant ( b = 0.85, SE = 0.22, p < 0.001).
Seven of the 9 differences are highly significant with p < 0.001.
First, a bivariate correlation between these variables showed a highly significant association, r (851) = −0.78, p < 0.001.
Specifically, there are extremely significant statistical differences between widowed and non-widowed elders in children’s economic support ( p < 0.001), children’s sick care ( p < 0.001), and children’s emotional support ( p < 0.001), respectively.
However, although these correlations were all highly significant ( p < 0.001 for each MMR subscale) they were nevertheless weak.
As shown in Table 10 , the simple effect of the number of measurements in the experimental group was highly significant ( p < 0.001).
When participants did not receive a warning that selective repetitions came from speakers with vested interests, the repetition-contrast score was positive and highly significant, M = +28.34, SD = 25.82 [20.76; 35.92], t (46) = 7.60, d = 2.22, p < 0.001.
The interaction between the time of the evaluation and the therapeutic modality was highly significant ( t 183 = −36.974, p < 0.001, d = 0.91).
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.
Differences between the post-treatment and waitlist groups on PTSD symptom scales were highly significant ( p < 0.001), with moderate to large effect sizes on changes in both the frequency and severity of symptoms.
With respect to the How Confident section, the seven-factor model demonstrated a statistically and practically significant improvement in model fit as compared to the five-factor model, Δχ 2 (11) = 2645.780, p < 0.001, ΔTLI = 0.041; first six-factor model (A), Δχ 2 (6) = 958.617, p < 0.001, ΔTLI = 0.013; and second six-factor model (B), Δχ 2 (6) = 1969.970, p < 0.001, ΔTLI = 0.031.
A Chi-squared test showed this difference was highly significant (χ 2 = 75.1307, p < .001).
The standardized total effect of cognitive fusion on symptoms ( c = 0.82) was highly significant (95% BCI: 0.73–0.91, p < 0.001, two-tailed) with a non-significant total effect (0.05, 95% BCI: −0.06-0.16) in the case of self-compassion.
The analysis revealed a highly significant effect on the model fit [ χ 2 (1) = 222.59, p < 0.001].
It was found that the direct effect of exercise self-efficacy on depression increased progressively from low to high levels of perceived social support: from non-significant (β = 0.016, SE = 0.069, 95% CI = [−0.119, 0.151], p = 0.815), to significant (β = −0.109, SE = 0.053, 95% CI = [−0.214, −0.005], p < 0.05), to highly significant (β = −0.234, SE = 0.067, 95% CI = [−0.365, −0.104], p < 0.001).
SZ) were both highly significant with F = 12,503 ( p < 0.001) and F = 12,096 ( p = 0.001), respectively.