In Model 2, MSPSS approached significance ( β = −0.09, SE = 0.04, t = −1.93, p = 0.054), and the interaction between AES and MSPSS was significant ( β = 0.01, SE = 0.008, t = 2.06, p < 0.05), indicating a moderating effect of AES on the relationship between support and adjustment.
As can be expected following the results above, following the intervention in English significantly larger gains are observed in English ( M = 0.27) than in Hebrew ( M = 0.05) for target words that were taught in English, t (21) = 5.93, p < 0.001, and following the intervention in Hebrew larger gains are observed in Hebrew ( M = 0.11) than in English ( M = 0.02) for target words that were taught in Hebrew, and the difference was nearly significant, t (21) = 2.04, p = 0.054.
Intercepts for anxiety and depression approached significance ( p = 0.054 and p = 0.089, respectively), with mild asymmetry suggesting that smaller studies with null or unfavorable results may be under-represented, a pattern also noted in several recent music intervention meta-analyses.
The total effects of first-generation status on satisfaction with studying were considerably lower and only marginally significant at time point two (β total = –0.09; p = 0.054) or even nonsignificant time point three (β total = –0.05; p = 0.203).
A marginally significant effect of condition [ F (2,43.76) = 3.11, p = 0.054; see the mean scores and confidence intervals presented in Table 1 ] on the change scores pertaining to positive emotions was observed.
Results Behavioral Results The ANOVA results showed significant main effects of the stimulus congruency [ F (1,15) = 24.774, p = 0.000 < 0.05], stimulus orientation (medial/lateral) [ F (1,15) = 9.47, p = 0.005 < 0.05], and body part [ F (1,15) = 5.746, p = 0.03 < 0.05], a significant stimulus congruency by body part interaction [ F (1, 15) = 13.24, p = 0.003 < 0.05] and a marginally significant stimulus orientation by body part interaction effect on RT [ F (1,15) = 4.351, p = 0.054].
The increase in interference effects in accuracy with the number of the SL G alleles was also significant or marginally significant in all four distracter conditions in run1 (threat: r = 0.195, p = 0.054; neutral: r = 0.170, p = 0.082; scrambled: r = 0.192, p = 0.057; null: r = 0.218, p = 0.036; all one-tailed correlations).
For the younger subjects, the linear fit was borderline significant [ F (1,2) = 17.17; p = 0.054; R 2 = 0.896] and the logarithmic fit was significant [ F (1,2) = 58.83; p = 0.017; R 2 = 0.967].
Also, her word translation skills revealed a slight trend toward significance in L1–L2 (Crawford’s t -test = -1.82, p = 0.054, z cc = -4.25) but no deficit in the L2–L1 direction (Crawford’s t -test = 0.50, p = 0.466, z cc = -1.38) ( Figure 2C ).
It is worth noting that post-HABIT internalized shame score came very close to being statistically significant (post-HABIT Perceived Stigma Internalized Shame score is not a significant predictor of post-HABIT Perceived Stress, B = 0.1.072[−0.019, 2.163], t = 2.012, p = 0.054).
In the remaining two trials there was significant to a marginally significant difference of below chance looking [second: t(17) = −2.61, p = 0.054; third: t (16) = −2.82, p = 0.036].
The two-way interaction of age group × sentence target was marginally significant, F (1,131) = 3.77, p = 0.054, np 2 = 0.03.
Children’s preferential looking to high infantile images was driven primarily by adult images with the effect approaching significance [Baby schema * Adultness, F (1,49) = 3.889, p = 0.054].
Individual differences in the recognition of band pass filtered speech predicted significant unique variance in more of the outcome measures: phonology (7%, β = 0.27, t = 2.2, p < 0.05), RAN (10%, β = -0.34, t = 2.9, p = 0.005), reading (14%, β = 0.39, t = 3.2, p = 0.002), spelling (16%, β = 0.42, t = 3.5, p = 0.001) and approached significance for vocabulary development (4%, β = 0.22, t = 2.0, p = 0.054).
We also found that there was marginal significance between identity type and spatial frequency, F (1,24) = 3.720, p = 0.054.
Looking at the effect of Language, Mann–Whitney tests were carried out on participants’ RCA scores in each type of display, revealing a significant effect of Language in the Polychrome condition, U = 42, Z = 4.26, p < 0.001; and a marginally significant effect in the Monochrome condition, U = 114, Z = 1.93, p = 0.054, with RCAs being produced more often in English than in Spanish in both types of display.
There was a marginally significant trial effect ( EST = −3.65, SE = 1.89, t = −1.93, p = 0.054).
Affective empathy, our main empathy variable, as well as total empathy, were not associated with MR skills, but cognitive empathy approached significance ( r = 0.22 p = 0.054).
No significant main effect of alignment was found, F < 1, but the main effect of congruency was significant, F (1,127) = 54.14, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.30, MSE = 317, and the main effect of font was marginally significant, F (2,127) = 2.99, p = 0.054, η 2 = 0.04, MSE = 55167, because, as shown in Figure 1B and demonstrated in post hoc HSD Tukey tests, participants were overall faster when words were presented in typical courier than in handwritten case ( p = 0.038; the other two comparisons, p s > 0.40).
A mixed ANOVA with Group, Trial type and Block as factors revealed a marginally significant main effect of group [ F (1,10) = 4.78, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.32], and significant main effects of trial type [ F (1,10) = 39.37, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.80], and block [ F (17,170) = 19.31, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.66].
As can be seen in Table 2 , across both groups there was a marginally significant relationship between age and the initial perception of risk, E(q 1 ), r (43) = −0.290, p = 0.054, such that older individuals had higher initial perceptions of risk.
However, due to the high variance in performance among subjects, only the German free recall test nearly reached significance [ F (2,34) = 3.19, p = 0.054, η 2 = 0.19].
Results indicated that the model became significant, and also showed a trend toward significant improvement over the second step [ F (6, 144) = 2.12, p = 0.054, R = 0.29, adjusted R 2 = 0.04, Δ R 2 = 0.02, p = 0.058, f 2 = 0.08, power = 0.83].
For extrinsic aspirations, the difference among different types of participants reached marginal significance ( Q B = 7.636, p = 0.054).
Availability for reading was a marginally significant predictor for learning, b = 0.4248, SE = 0.2110, p = 0.0542.