Excerpts

In the no-contact condition, the simple main effect of the state of the phone was marginally significant, F (1.49,35.87) = 3.71, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.011, and the dots distance was significant, F (1.22,29.31) = 5.39, p = 0.02, η 2 = 0.024.

( 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.

Last, the interaction between Veterans’ physical health and social support predicting relationship satisfaction was marginally significant ( B = 0.08, SE = 0.04, z = 1.95, p = 0.05, 95% CI [0.00; 0.17]).

A similar rmANOVA of the ZM in response to angry faces ( Figure 2B ) revealed a barely significant Time × Reward interaction [ F (3,114) = 2.78, p = 0.05, η p 2 = 0.068].

However, the responses for dynamic proximal and momentary distal cues were marginally insignificant (goodness-of-fit χ 2 test: χ 2 = 3.739, df = 1, p = 0.05).

There was also a marginally significant group*time interaction for executive function ( p = 0.05).

For the final body weights after the 6-week feeding protocol, there was a group effect [ F (3, 247) = 4.8, p < 0.005], whereas a group × genotype effect approached significance [ F (3, 247) = 2.6, 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.

In sensitivity analyses with previous VR experience recoded as a binary variable, the interaction terms were not significantly significant in models with perceived restorativeness or in models with negative affect, p > 0.05.

The CMQ remained a marginally significant predictor with β = 0.18, p = 0.050.

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).

Additionally, the interaction between test timing and exercise method was significant [ F (4, 84) = 3.229, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.071], the interaction between test timing and CF level was marginally significant ( p = 0.050), and the interaction between test timing, exercise methods, and CF level was significant [ F (1, 84) = 3.328, p < 0.05, η p 2 = 0.072].

Both of them showed marginal significance ( p = 0.05), which may be related to the fluency state being a higher psychological state of competitive sports psychology, and it may also be related to the level of athletes’ trait mindfulness and the time effect of mindfulness training.

Additionally, a marginally significant 2-way interaction effect between family resilience and caregiver needs was also observed ( b = −0.01, p = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.001]).

In the motivated effort model, only the group effect that had already being observed across all load conditions achieved marginal significance ( b = -3.02, t = -1.97, p = 0.05, n = 54), but no effect of maximum digit span ( b = -0.48, t = -0.90, p = 0.37, n = 54) or motivated effort ( b = 0.04, t = 0.20, p = 0.84, n = 54) was found.

Moreover, the percentage of penalized trials showed a near-significant negative correlation with age (ρ = −0.263, p = 0.050).

Results *Note: Statistical significance is denoted consistently throughout the manuscript as follows: + p < 0.1 (marginally significant), * p < 0.05 , ** p < 0.01 , ** p < 0.001 .

Results The latency to reach the feeder decreased over sessions ( Figure 1C ; χ 2 (5) = 53.52, p < 0.0001, η p 2 = 0.31), the main effect of each condition on latency fell just short of significance [χ 2 (2) = 5.98, p = 0.0503, η p 2 = 0.05], and a significant Condition × Session interaction was found [χ 2 (10) = 26.56, p = 0.003, η p 2 = 0.18].

The type of distractor task also approached significance, Q (1) = 3.83, p = 0.0503, but further inspection of the data shows that this effect is entirely driven by a single study that used a word-search puzzle.

A One-Way ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of the three conditions in the total disruption duration [ F (2, 28) = 3.33, p = 0.0504, p rep = 0.92, η 2 p = 0.19].

A T-test was performed, finding with marginal significance longer RTs for congruent ( M = 2.331 s, SD = 0.752) compared to incongruent ( M = 2.041 s, SD = 0.471) trials, t (31) = -2.03, p = 0.051.

Additionally, the near-significant positive effect of training weeks ( β = 0.050, p = 0.051) supports extending intervention duration, while the lack of significance for training frequency suggests that simply increasing session frequency may not be the key factor for improving effectiveness. 4.6 Research limitations and future research directions Although this study provides valuable findings, several important limitations should be carefully considered when interpreting the results.

When the anger modality was the body, the interaction between the emotion compound type and group was marginally significant [ F (2,74) = 3.10, p = 0.051, η 2 = 0.08].

The aggregated data across studies indicated that the incremental beliefs were associated with higher levels of students' achievement in Asia ( k = 9, r = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.07, 0.17; p < 0.001), Oceania (Australia) ( k = 8, r = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.09, 0.34; p < 0.001), and at the limit of significance in North America ( k = 33, r = 0.10, 95% CI = −0.00, 0.19; p = 0.051) but were not significant for Europe ( k = 20, r = 0.04; 95% CI = −0.01, 0.10; p = 0.119).

Levene’s test was close to significance ( p = 0.051), indicating slightly higher variance in the patients’ group.