Excerpts

The SART mean RT and errors of commission The mean RT had a highly significant effect on EoC [ F (1, 111.55) = 50.03, p < 0.001].

Strong significant main effects of set were found in T1, T3, and T4, and a marginally significant main effect of set were found in T2 [T1: F (2, 308) = 7.38, p = 0.001, p η 2 = 0.05; T2: F (2, 308) = 2.36, p =0.1, p η 2 =0.015; T3: F (2, 308) = 4.53, p = 0.012, p η 2 = 0.029; T4: F (2, 308) = 14.19, p < 0.001, pη2 = 0.084].

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).

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.

Separate analyses revealed that the effect of Condition was highly significant in L1 ( F (1, 1939.5) = 23.8, p < 0.001), but there was no such effect in L2 ( F (1, 1939.5) = 1.35, p = 0.246).

For sP and sDHEA, no moderation effects were observed, while for sE2, a positive trend for hostility ( R 2 = 0.3418, p = 0.001; B = 0.1168, SE = 0.0687, p = 0.0922, R 2 change = 0.0192) and physical aggression ( R 2 = 0.3605, p < 0.001; B = 0.0860, SE = 0.0493, p = 0.0841, R 2 change = 0.0197) emerged.

Bartlett’s test of sphericity is highly significant, χ 2 (45) = 4276.025, p < 0.001, suggesting that the dataset is suitable for underlying factor extraction and structure identification.

RT The factor Congruence N was highly significant, F (1, 39) = 146.22, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.79, with smaller RTs in congruent (677 ms) than in incongruent (731 ms) trials.

The main effect of Administration time (pre ToT; after ToT; end-of-break, after-the-break) on the VAS fatigue was highly significant ( F (3, 66) = 23.82, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.52).

This effect of orientation was highly significant ( p < 0.001), but interacted with the effect of category ( p < 0.02), suggesting that the behavioral cost of mirror recognition was greater for words (41 ms) than for objects (25 ms).

In the within-group comparisons, both the inpatient group and outpatient group showed highly significant reductions in pain interference at T2–T4 compared to T1 (inpatient p ≤ 0.001, 0.001, 0.001 vs outpatient, all p ≤ 0.001).

However, although these correlations were all highly significant ( p < 0.001 for each MMR subscale) they were nevertheless weak.

Importantly, a highly significant Group × Item Type interaction ( F (1, 1795) = 23.43, p < 0.001) was observed.

There are two important differences between the two groups regarding the prediction model of ED: the model explains the higher ED variance in psoriasis patients (35%) when compared to healthy persons (19%), and the contribution of expressive suppression is moderately significant in healthy persons ( p < 0.05), and quite significant in psoriasis patients ( p < 0.001) ( Table 7 ).

However, a highly significant interaction between valence and expectation was found [ F (1,86) = 82.18, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.489].

The F -test with true value 0 (25.24, both for individual measurements and for mean measurements) was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

As the difference in age was highly significant between the groups [ F (3, 186) = 101, p < 0.001], it was included as a covariate. 3.2 Results for the main hypotheses In the total sample, the SC-IAT showed high internal consistency (adjusted r = 0.87), in line with our hypothesis ( H1 ).

As expected, there was a highly significant main effect of tempo, with faster rates producing shorter ITIs [ F (2,100) = 9559.96, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.995].

Results revealed highly significant differences across cultural groups for all three variables ( p < 0.001), confirming that cultural background not only influences students' sports participation behaviors but also meaningfully shapes their perceptions of basketball culture and their psychological adjustment processes.

In NAF condition, there was a highly significant negative association between k values and the mean of the absolute values of ΔF2 for each PWS and each place of articulation ( r = −0.636, p < 0.001 for Pearson product-moment uncorrected scores, based on 63 observations).

Crucially, the effect of latent profiles remained highly significant after covariate adjustment, F (3,221) = 31.02, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.296.

The difference between these two syllable types is highly significant (sign test p < 0.001), as 22 of the 23 speakers have more pulses in the case of the coda condition.

The likelihood-ratio comparison between these two nested models is highly significant ( X 2 10 = 759.46, p < 0.001), suggesting that item-level residual dependence should not be ignored.

A Linear Mixed Effect Model (with participant, scene and ordinal trial number entered as random effects) revealed that there was a highly significant effect of scene organization on the distance from the center of each quadrant ( t = 35.94, p < 0.001), with scenes that were scrambled having fixations that were 14.67% closer to the quadrant center (Figure 3 ).

The term “highly significant” is often used to refer to studies with < 1 possibility in 1,000 that the results are due to chance, or p < 0.001.