Excerpts

Results indicated a strong trend for a significant effect of Proximity, F (2,50) = 3.09, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.11.

The significant relation between children’s social mirroring skills at 12 months and DSR at 4 years of age r partial (36) = 0.32, p = 0.048, remained significant when controlling for gender, while the relation between MSR at 24 months and DSR at 4 years of age remained marginally significant when controlling for gender; r partial (46) = 0.23, p = 0.05, as did the relation between the SF smile effect and social mirroring at 12 months, r partial (44) = 0.22, p = 0.07.

Of the 506 inter-listener correlations, only 12 failed to reach significance at p = 0.05 level, and most were significant p < 0.001.

In detail, as reported in Supplementary material Appendix , out of 173 countries we found that 90 have significant results ( P < 0.10), 73 countries highly significant ( P < 0.05), and 110 countries had a negative beta, meaning that 63.58% of the analyzed countries show a positive impact of increased internet usage on mental health.

When the total intervention duration was ≤10 min, the improvement of the response time effect showed marginal significance (SMD = −0.68, p = 0.05), while when it exceeded 100 min, the response time did not show significant improvement (SMD = −1.03, p > 0.05).

The intervention period of less than 6 weeks improved the response time to a certain extent, showing a marginally significant effect (SMD = −0.68, p = 0.05), while the intervention period exceeding 6 weeks did not make the response time reach statistical significance (SMD = −1.03, p > 0.07).

Equality constraints were then imposed upon the autoregressive parameters, which did lead to a marginally significant decrement in model fit, χ 2 change = 9.59, df = 4, p = 0.05.

This result remained significant when restricted to the 14 children who used HoW as the unfamiliar book (85.7% chose familiar, 2-tailed p = 0.01) and was marginally significant when restricted to the 27 children who used HP-UK as the unfamiliar book (70.4%, 2-tailed p = 0.05).

Education was marginally significant too, but with a very small effect size [ F (1,80) = 3.97, p = 0.05, η 2 p = 0.05].

The tests revealed a near-significant difference in three-day average PM 2.5 readings between Round 1 and Round 2 ( Z = −1.96; p = 0.05), and no differences in three cognitive measures: working memory ( Z = −1.13; p = 0.26), inhibitory control ( Z = −1.52; p = 0.10), and arithmetic ( Z = −0.87; p = 0.39).

In the first phase of the study, the traditional teaching model used by Group A had a moderately significant effect ( p < 0.05) on improving participants’ positive psychological qualities only in the “Cognition” dimension, with no significant effects observed in the other dimensions.

Similarly, the bivariate correlation between Snail’s walk and the calculation speed ability appears to be slightly significant ( r = −0.24; P < 0.05); eliminating age, the correlation appears strongly significant ( r = −0.31; P < 0.01).

(e) OS shows marginal significance ( p < 0.05) in the 5% quantile and strong significance ( p < 0.001) in the 25% and 50% quantiles.

A significant or marginally significant interaction between task and background color was found for NA score [ F (1,38) = 4.25, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.10] and TDR [ F (1,36) = 3.03, p = 0.09, η p 2 = 0.08], indicating that the effect of background color depends on the task.

A few categories, such as Auxiliary (for Group 2), Familiar Objects and Verbs (for age), showed marginally significant p -values (e.g., p ≈ 0.05–0.06).

Children's pupils dilated until digit 6 on average (6.1 ± 2.0), with incremental increases from cue to digit 1, digit 2 to 3, and digit 4 to 5, [all t (68) = 2.7, p < 0.01], and a marginally significant increase from digit 1 to 2 [ t (68) = 2.0, p = 0.05].

There was a main effect of motion type ( F1 (2,60) = 11.27, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 27.3, observed power = 0.99; F2 (2,32) = 9.75, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 37.9, observed power = 0.972), and a marginally significant effect of verb type in the participants analysis ( F1 (1,30) = 4.16, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 12.2, observed power = 0.506), and in the items analysis ( F2 (1, 16) = 4.14, p = 0.059, η p 2 = 20.5, observed power = 0.481).

This model included the effect of PA on BD, which demonstrated a standardized coefficient very close to significance, but without reaching it ( β = −0.10, p = 0.05).

This difference was found to be marginally significant when examining the EHQ subscale of feelings about healthy eating, χ 2 (4) = 9.48, p = 0.050, Cramer’s V = 0.27.

Low anxiety was related to a marginally significant effect of emotion, with poorer performance (that means, i.e., enhanced suppression) for negative compared to neutral scenes, p = 0.05.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant contribution of interval type in the main effects model ( F (1, 233) = 31.34, p < 0.001); the interaction of language type and interval type significantly improved the model fit in a second-order interaction model comparison, F (1, 229) = 10.01, p = 0.002; and the third-order interaction model also showed a borderline significant improvement ( F (3, 226) = 2.70, p = 0.05).

Although the model for motivation did not reach significance, χ 2 (5) = 9.11, p = 0.11, the interaction between theory of mind and interpretation of the praise approached significance, B = −0.38, Wald = 3.80, p = 0.05.

The DASS-A emerged as the only marginally significant predictor of ratings for the ambiguous danger CS D, ρ(49) = −0.27, p = 0.05.

Again, no other predictor reached conventional levels of significance although warmth was a marginally significant negative predictor, B = −0.62, SE = 0.32, Exp(B) = 0.54, p = 0.05.

The AE group also showed significant effects of time on RTs ( F (2, 32) = 14.17, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 0.469), with significant improvements from Pre to Post-0 ( t = 7.28, p = 0.0003, d = 1.24) and a trend toward significance from Post-0 to Post-20 ( t = 3.533, p = 0.05, d = 0.61).