However, the mean rate dropped to around half, which was a highly significant change [ t (35) = 68.79, p < 0.0001 for HCP; t (35) = 44.66, p < 0.0001 for FCC].
Excerpts
All differences turned out highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
The results show a highly significant CONNECTIVE × EADV interaction (LRT = 56.92, p < 0.0001), see Table 6 and Figure 3 .
Convergent validity between SDMT and c-SDMT was highly significant ( r = −0.794, p < 0.0001).
A mixed-effects model ANOVA found a highly significant effect of the period (13 vs. 17 months) on the likelihood of pointing during touching by caregivers ( F (1, 27) = 62.69, p < 0.0001), which showed that toddlers were less likely to point while the caregiver were touching toddlers to assist them when they were 17 months old, compared to when they were 13 months old.
An analysis of the z -transform of these correlations coefficients revealed that the difference was highly significant, t (75) = 8.41, p < 0.0001 (GF items with each other: z = 0.709; GF items with other items: z = 0.237).
The RPE was strongly positively correlated with consumptive indicators (e.g., fatigue, delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS); r = 0.51) but moderately negatively correlated with restorative indicators (e.g., sleep quality; r = −0.45), with the difference between these groups being highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
This contrast turned out to be highly significant, F (1,78) = 3,298.45, p < 0.0001.
A non-parametric trend test revealed a significant trend in their responses (Page’s trend test, z = 5.16, p < 0.0001).
However, that for the ‘Fiction’ condition is highly significant (r 2 = 0.388; F 1,39 = 24.75, p < 0.0001).
An independent samples t -test revealed that this difference was highly significant [t(71.14)=9.578, p<0.0001 ].
Friedman tests revealed that the effect of combination of dimension and set on mean scores was highly significant for both high-fear subjects (Friedman chi-squared 3 = 123.57, p < 0.0001) and low-fear subjects (Friedman chi-squared 3 = 234.94, p < 0.0001).
For all three emotions, the effect was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
As noted above, PSWQ showed a small but statistically significant ( p = 0.0017) negative effect of Obs, and highly significant (all p < 0.0001) small-to-medium effects of the other facets.
The difference between the two averages of the peak heart rate was highly significant ( p = 0.0001; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, W = −225, n s/ r = 21, z = −3.9).
As illustrated in Figure 1B , in the mixed ANOVA run on mean correct RTs, the critical interaction between alignment and congruency was highly significant, F (1,127) = 14.6, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.10, MSE = 174.
The test for heterogeneity was highly significant [ Q ( df = 34) = 577.47, p < 0.0001].
The difference between WS individuals and TD controls is highly significant [ t (35) = 6.56, p < 0.0001, two-tailed, with an effect size Cohen’s d = 2.23].
Further, comparing the 100–300 and 300–500 ms time-windows directly using the pre-stimulus baseline demonstrates a highly significant C ondition × T ime-window × AP interaction [ F (1, 25) = 31.45, p < 0.0001].
For the PMHS, the KMO amounted to 0.955 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
There was a highly significant difference between the EFG and CG with p = 0.0001 ( p < 0.01).
When examining intra-individual change for the entire sample of participants ( n = 42) that completed the hula program, there was a highly significant outcome on total physical activity ( p < 0.0001), moderate exercise ( p < 0 0.0001), and mild exercise ( p < 0.0001).
The difference was highly significant [ t (174) = 5.48, p < 0.0001, Cohen’s d = 1.04].
Thus, we can retain hypothesis HG 2 and can, by means of a simple t -test, even show that the difference in means is highly significant ( p < 10 −4 ).
Consistent with the target data, the effect of generation rate on CS1 was highly significant in all four simulations, with a very large effect size [Simulation 1A: F (5, 94.47) = 82.43, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.64; Simulation 1B: F (5, 96.54) = 65.16, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.71; Simulation 2A: F (5, 95.53) = 74.62, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.65; Simulation 2B: F (5, 97.278) = 29.85, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.54].