Results indicate that together MSR and TTR at T1 explain 41% of the variance within CMAS at T2 ( R 2 = 0.47, F (2, 343) = 151.5, p < 0.001) with highly significant contributions from both indicators (β TTR = 0.47, p < 0.001 and β NSR = 0.30, p < 0.001).
Excerpts
If the Bartlett's test of Sphericity is highly significant at p < 0.001, this indicates that that the correlation matrix has significant correlations among at least some of the variables (Shrestha, 2021 ).
The indirect effect of OPAC on JP through JS was also moderately significant ( β = 0.109, p < 0.001), and the corresponding VAF was 90.8%, indicating full mediation for this pathway.
However, there was a highly significant interaction between these factors [ F (4, 48) = 6.97, p = 0.001, η 2 p = 0.37].
Regarding the fixed effects (see Table 1 ), a highly significant Time × Group interaction was observed, F (1, 195.00) = 90.43, p < 0.001, with a substantial effect size ( η p 2 = 0.32).
In addition to the significance value ( p < 0.05, *significant; p < 0.01; strong significant; p < 0.001, highly significant), the effect sizes for all ANCOVAs are given using Partial Eta Squared (ɳ 2 p ). 2.5.5.
Even when this distribution is dropped to have 10,000 randomly selected comparisons from each condition, there is still an extremely significant difference of F (1,19,999) = 1,004.58, p < 0.001.
The results unambiguously support that perceived closeness reacts to the treatment manipulation: future managers feel closer to their fellow, with an average closeness equal to 3.96, than to subjects from the other school (3.09, the difference is highly significant, p < 0.001, according to paired-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test).
As shown in Table 2 , school bullying was an extremely significant positive predictor of depression ( β = 0.87, p < 0.001), and the fit index R 2 showed that the predictive model of school bullying on depression explained 6% of its variance.
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).
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.
Paired-samples t -test results: Male students in the experimental group showed a highly significant improvement in total psychological resilience score after the experiment compared with the pre-test ( t = −4.376, p < 0.001, Hedges’ g = 0.79).
The statistical analysis revealed highly significant differences with moderate to strong effect sizes on the multivariate level [ F (6,214) = 7.05, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.17], on the univariate level for the PTSD severity [ F (3,108) = 5.88, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.14] and for the sum score of the regularly experienced violence [ F (3,108) = 14.09, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.28].
School public areas also highly significant for both Portuguese and Mathematics [ χ ( M ) 2 = 25.83, p < 0.001; χ ( P ) 2 = 28.18, p < 0.001].
This difference was highly significant [χ 2 (2, N = 1676) = 133.94, p > 0.001] with a Cramer’s φ = 0.28, which meant a small (almost moderate) effect.
The Shapiro-Wilk test for normal distribution was highly significant, p < 0.001, for all items and the scale.
One-way ANOVAs by school year found highly significant increases with age on all variables, using the Welch robust statistic, p < 0.001 in each case.
Results of the ANOVA indicated that the main effect of Motion was highly significant [ F (1, 11) = 31.080, p < 0.001], which was also true for that of Duration [ F (2, 22) = 56.407, p < 0.001].
The simplified model focuses on core variables ( Table 4 ), where job autonomy remained highly significant ( β = 0.517, p < 0.001), while organizational identification approached the critical threshold ( β = 0.07, p = 0.091).
This test was highly significant, p < 0.001, and indicated that the two correlations between Weber fractions of the two visual cue control conditions within each presentation format were significantly different from one and other: Weber fractions between the two visual cue controls in the sequential conditions were correlated, while Weber fractions between the two visual cue controls in the simultaneous conditions were not related.
The relationships between all achievement variables were established to be highly significant and generally consistent across the 3 time points ( r = 0.62–0.77; p < 0.001; See Table 5 ).
Table 7 presents the SEM-implied correlation matrix among the three latent variables, indicating that the associations between the Emotional Restoration System (ERS), the Place Attachment System (PAS), and Perceived Rural Sustainability (PRS) are all highly significant ( p < 0.001).
According to the results, there is a positive and highly significant impact of Job Security on Depression (β = 0.293; p <0.001) and Anxiety (β = 0.213; p = 0.001).
This effect was described by a highly significant linear trend, F (1, 20) = 53.14, p < 0.001, indicating a continuous decrease of relatedness ratings with increasing latency of gaze reactions.
The indicators of cooperation all show highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) ( Figure 9 ) and large effects (up value d = 1.727) in the comparison of school gardening vs. classroom.