Additionally, a two-way interaction between ownership and valence (stock outcome) approached significance, F (1, 21) = 13.68, p = 0.001, η 2 partial = 0.394, suggesting that the gain–loss effect was inconsistent between the two different owners (self, other).
A separate repeated-measures ANOVA for fixation count (log-transformed AOI 7) showed a highly significant effect of post type [ F (1,151) = 102.503, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.404], indicating that 40.4% of variance in fixation count can be attributed to whether a post is sponsored or organic.
The coefficient for the current score difference shows a highly significant influence as well ( t = 5.10, p < 0.001), with an average increase of 0.78 s for each positive increase in the goal difference.
However, a highly significant interaction between valence and expectation was found [ F (1,86) = 82.18, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.489].
Group analyses confirmed a highly significant mixing cost on rP3 amplitude in Old but a marginal effect in Young adults [2.8μV, F (1,29) = 22.59, p < 0.001 vs. 0.96μV, F (1,24) = 4.57, p = 0.043, respectively; Table 2 ].
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).
For the language tasks, the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test demonstrated a highly significant effect of group, F (2, 54) = 34.829, p < 0.001, and this was driven by all three groups being significantly different from one another: non-native signer < native signer, p = 0.029, non-native signer < hearing, p = 0.001, and native signer < hearing, p = 0.009.
The difference of 353 ms was highly significant [ t (31) = 4.60, p < 0.001].
MANCOVA revealed a highly significant group difference ( F 4/61 = 34.03; p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.69).
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.
Comparing the accuracies of the four participants to the combined accuracies of their permuted data yielded a highly significant difference at the group level ( t = −5.0, p < 0.001).
As we can see from both Figure 1 and Table 3 , our model shows a highly significant and strong negative effect of Immigration procedural fairness on Lack of human dignity , β = -0.66, p ≤ 0.001, 95% BCa CI [-0.74, -0.53], with close to moderate coefficient of determination (R 2 = 0.43), large effect size (f 2 = 0.77) and large predictive relevance (Q 2 = 0.21).
The response surface slope test for the line of congruence ( x = y ) was highly significant ( B = 0.51, SE = 0.09, p = 0.001), suggesting that there is a positive linear relationship between authentic positive expression and degree of goal attainment.
It is worth noting in this connection that the correlation between CPM and performance on the inflection task is relatively strong and highly significant ( r = 0.63, p < 0.001).
Specifically, differences were highly significant for grade (χ 2 = 454.81, p < 0.001) and gender (χ 2 = 378.18, p < 0.001), and significant for only-child status (χ 2 = 6.86, p < 0.05) and place of origin (χ 2 = 8.66, p < 0.05), as shown in Table 5 .
The difference is highly significant [McNemar χ 2 (1) = 10.76, p < 0.001).
It can be seen from the ANOVA table that the effect of sample, i.e., help-seeking versus non-help-seeking, is highly significant [ F (1, 2, 308) = 248, p < 0.001] as one would expect.
Because the 95% confidence interval is relatively narrow for this effect and does not include 0, these findings can be interpreted as a medium summary effect that is positive, precise, and highly significant ( p < 0.001).
Although the pattern of the intercorrelations varies across countries, they all qualify as moderate or high ( Cohen, 1988 ) and highly significant ( p < 0.001).
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.
A 2 ( observer _sex) × 2 ( actor _sex) × 3 ( actor _success) analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed highly significant effects for the level of success ( p < 0.001).
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.
All other pairwise differences were highly significant ( p < 0.001).
In the left hand columns of Table 3 representing the results for squeals, vocants, and growls the odds ratios show that the three protophones conformed to the first two predictions (protophones > cry in neutrality, protophones < cry in negativity) with highly significant odds ratios (ORs > 1 and p < 0.001).
There were highly significant increases in the number of words remembered over Trials I-V (linear trend F = 312.74, p < 0.001; quadratic trend F = 17.64, p < 0.001; for all effects reported in this section df = 1.32), indicating learning of words over trials.