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.
However, despite no moderation effect, the temperamental characteristic of IBQ distress to limitations had a near-significant main effect in the 6 months (β = 0.28, p = 0.05), 9 months (β = 0.27, p = 0.06), and 12 months (β = 0.28, p = 0.05) models.
More specifically, in the moderating role of rural–urban factors, the effect sizes of two influencing factors—education level (Qb = 9.837, p < 0.01) and higher education participation (Qb = 6.753, p < 0.01)—were all significantly different, whereas the difference in the effect size of lifelong learning engagement was weakly significant (Qb = 4.341, p < 0.05).
Additionally, the self-ratings of olfactory function showed a marginally significant correlation with the ratings of association-subscale (ρ 199 = 0.14, P = 0.05).
Moreover, the percentage of penalized trials showed a near-significant negative correlation with age (ρ = −0.263, p = 0.050).
The research conducted by Di (2022) indicates that cultural adaptation showed a moderately significant positive correlation with Chinese language proficiency ( p < 0.05), and a significantly positive correlation with enrollment management, teaching management, differentiated management, recognition of administrative staff, and teaching satisfaction (all p < 0.01).
Indeed, Kianga exhibited significantly more affiliative behaviors in the RS period, whereas a trend toward significance ( p = 0.05) was reported for Lubaya.
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.
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.
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).
The univariate ANOVA performed on accuracy using the number of errors as the dependent variable showed that the main effect of group was marginally significant [ F (1,35) = 3.92, p = 0.05, MSE = 2.34, partial η 2 = 0.10, 1-β error prob = 0,38].
For SDI, although there was no age main effect, F (1, 61) = 3.57, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.05, the Skill × Age interaction approached conventional levels of significance at p = 0.05, F (1, 61) = 4.29, η p 2 = 0.06.
For total empathy, the main effect of group was not significant ( F = 0.87, p = 0.39), the main effect of gender was marginally significant ( F = 3.80, p = 0.05), and the group × age interaction was not significant ( F = 0.69, p = 0.42).
Gender Effects on Coding Accuracy In Model c , reported in Figure 3 , the direct effect of gender on coding accuracy at T2 approaches statistical significance (B = 0.37, p = 0.05).
The CMQ remained a marginally significant predictor with β = 0.18, p = 0.050.
Interestingly, there was a nearly significant negative correlation between the quality of interactions and hand speed difference ( P = 0.05), suggesting that the more couples had a good quality of interaction, the better was the behavioral synchrony of hand speed.
However, there was a strong trend for mean BVPamp [ t (16) = −2.119; p = 0.050; effect size d = 0.51], which was lower during paraphrasing than during taking notes.
The three-way interaction between UnA, UnD, and fairness on trust was marginally significant, β = 0.06, SE = 0.03, t (225) = 1.97, p = 0.050, [95% CI: 0.00 to 0.12].
Specifically, as exhibited in Figure 2 , the analyses of the three-way conditional effect ( B = 0.16; p < 0.05) showed that the interaction between role ambiguity and transformational leadership regarding job satisfaction was significant among respondents holding a position as a supervisor/manager ( B = 0.23; p < 0.001), but only borderline significant among respondents not holding a supervisor/manager position ( B = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05).
( 2014 ) mentioned, for the hypothesis to be accepted, t -value should be >2.33 and therefore, p -value should be <0.01, which implies that it is extremely significant, while hypothesis has been accepted in this study by assuming t -value > 1.645 and thus p- value <0.05, which implies that it is significant.
Sample size was also a significant moderator ( Q M (1) = 3.63, R 2 = 17.69%, p = 0.05), indicating a marginally significant negative association between sample size and effect size—larger samples tended to report slightly smaller effects ( β = −0.0054, SE = 0.0028, p = 0.05).
The interaction between frequency and repetition approached significance [ F 1(2, 46) = 3.20, MSE = 21419, p = 0.05; F 2(2, 30) = 2.77, MSE = 24961, p = 0.07], suggesting that the size of the frequency effect changed with the number of repetitions.
Trial Length A Mann–Whitney test indicated that mean trial length approached significance, U = 38.5, p = 0.05.
The stability effects of both variables were all highly significant ( p < 0.05), with the exception of the stability effects among females leading from the juniors’ academic self-efficacy to the seniors’ academic self-efficacy ( p = 0.072).
There was a marginally significant interaction between cued area size and cue style on accuracy, F (2,56) = 3.06, p = 0.05, but not response time, F (2,56) = 0.50, p = 0.61.