The results of the analysis of variance on the mean scores of the subjects across each subscale indicate a highly significant main effect of the strategy [ F (5,654) = 7.117, p < 0.01].
Excerpts
The results revealed highly significant concurrences (>1.96, p < 0.01) between these dimensions ( Figure 5 ), demonstrating that discussions richer in emotion-related content and about different referents appeared as conversations developed over time.
There was a highly significant correlation ( p < 0.01) between the processing speed estimate C and retirement status (Retired).
The inverse efficiency data from the same trials showed a highly significant alignment effect [ F (1, 25) = 24.96, p < 0.01, η ^ p 2 = 0.50] after controlling for a general blocking effect [Block: ε ^ GG = 0.73, F (2.18, 54.38) = 12.75, p < 0.01, η ^ p 2 = 0.34].
A highly significant main effect of disciplinary intensity was observed, F (2, 541) = 4,047.23, p < 0.01, η p 2 = 0.88, reflecting a large effect size.
The results revealed a positive and highly significant correlation between the NPQ and SPQ scores ( r = 0.84, p < 0.01).
Commitment indicated positive and highly significant relationship with employee resilience ( r = 0.515, p < 0.01).
Post hoc comparisons using t-tests with Bonferroni correction indicated highly significant differences (sports group and socially engaged group, t (243) = −2.89, p = 0.01, d = −0.37; sports group and nature protection organization, t (237) = −7.33, p < 0.001, d = −0.96; socially engaged group and nature protection organization, t (216) = −4.22, p < 0.001, d = −0.58).
The significant relationships between the focal behavior and the conditioned behaviors ( p < 0.05) are characterized by vector lengths >1.96, while highly significant relationships ( p < 0.01) are distinguished by vector lengths >2.58. 3.
The conditional effect of status on post-game T level was highly significant for participants high (plus 1 SD) on anxious attachment ( F = 7.61; p < 0.01; B = 159.67) while it was not significant for those with low (minus 1 SD) anxious attachment ( F = 3.18; n.s.; B = 80.15).
The results of the correlation analysis revealed that there were highly positive correlations between training years, family background, technical learning engagement, and self-efficacy, all of which reached an extremely significant level ( p < 0.01).
Data analysis and results Data analysis Reliability and validity All of the factor loadings were highly significant ( p < 0.01) to their respective latent constructs; the composite reliabilities of all of the constructs were > 0.80; and all of the average variance extracted estimates were > 0.60 (Table 1 ; Fornell and Larcker, 1981 ).
The results of the between-subjects effect test, simple effect analysis ( Tables 2 – 4 ), and pairwise comparative analysis of the tennis players’ reaction time when making a stroke landing prediction showed that the main effect of sport level was highly significant [ F (1,42) = 307.854, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.880].
failed to reach significancep < 0.01
Post-test For the baseline words, the vowel's main effect was significant by participants but failed to reach significance by items [ F 1 (1, 18) = 9.28, p < 0.01; F 2 (1, 42) = 2.63, p = 0.11].
For the new words, the vowel's main effect was highly significant [ F 1 (1, 18) = 14.28, p < 0.01; F 2 (1, 42) = 8.77, p < 0.01].
This correlation was highly significant for angry faces ( p < 0.01), and stronger in response to male faces compared to female faces but was not significant for neutral or happy faces.
A repeated-measures ANOVA on the training-session RTs with context (old, new) and epoch (1–4) as factors revealed a significant main effect of epoch, though only a marginally significant effect of context: epoch, F (1.71, 25.63) = 18.74, p < 0.01, η p 2 = 0.56 (RTs were 287 ms faster in epoch 4 than in epoch 1); context, F (1,15) = 4.22, p = 0.058, η p 2 = 0.20 (RTs were 106 ms faster to old than to new displays); the context × epoch interaction was not significant, F (1.43, 21.48) = 0.78, p = 0.51, η p 2 = 0.05.
The analyses between the variables studied yielded highly significant correlation coefficients ( p < 0.01).
The analyses between the studied variables yielded highly significant correlation coefficients ( p < 0.01).
Significance was set at an alpha level of P < 0.05 and a highly significant level of P < 0.01, with the Holm correction, applied for the post-hoc test.
As shown in Appendix , all the AVEs values of all constructs surpasses the 0.50 level ( Fornell and Larcker, 1981 ), and the factor loadings were highly significant ( P < 0.01), ranging from 0.659 to 0.821.
Military performance also indicated positive and highly significant relationships with self-efficacy (MLP&SFE, r = 0.525, p < 0.01).
In both surveys the differences between the answers to the corresponding items Q1 and Q4 were highly significant (one-sided paired t -tests, both P -values < 0.01).
Curiosity presented a correlation coefficient of 0.188, and imagination, a correlation coefficient of 0.205, both highly significant at the p < 0.01 level.
All studies in this re-analysis, showed a highly significant main effect of the group factor (with at least p < 0.01) at standard Anovas.