The summary of between-subjects’ effects in Table 1 indicates that both Age and Instruction have a highly significant influence on rate of reading scores ( p < 0.001).
Excerpts
The analysis revealed a highly significant effect on the model fit [ χ 2 (1) = 222.59, p < 0.001].
PERMANOVA on ‘dynamisms’ (main effects and pairwise tests) Main effect and pairwise test The three-way PERMANOVA (excluding ‘shame’ and ‘guilt’) revealed highly significant main effects for ‘dynamism’ (Pseudo- F = 15.53, p = 0.001), ‘Location’ (Pseudo- F = 4.52, p = 0.001), and ‘Time’ (Pseudo- F = 18.07, p = 0.001) ( Supplementary Table S6a ).
The results revealed highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) in overall motor ability scores and in the standard scores across all subtests between the two cohorts.
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy showed the data for Section 1 to be factorable (KMO = 0.856), Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also highly significant (χ 2 = 2868, df = 36, p < 0.001).
After the intervention, the experimental group showed a significant improvement in self-efficacy, with a highly significant difference between groups ( t = 12.76, p < 0.001), and an effect size of 0.65 (moderate effect), indicating that dance therapy has substantial clinical significance in improving self-efficacy.
A two-way mixed-measures analysis of variance indicated that there was a highly significant effect of administration condition on MIST total score, F (1,50) = 31.81, MSE = 14.065, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.389.
For IC, passive control groups showed a moderate beneficial effect (SMD = 0.53, 95% CI [0.33, 0.73]), while active control groups were associated with a significant negative effect (SMD = −0.69, 95% CI [−1.02, −0.36]), resulting in a highly significant subgroup difference ( p < 0.001).
The coefficient for the current score difference shows a highly significant influence as well ( t = 5.10, p < 0.001), with an average increase of 0.78 s for each positive increase in the goal difference.
This test was highly significant, p < 0.001, and indicated that the two correlations between Weber fractions of the two visual cue control conditions within each presentation format were significantly different from one and other: Weber fractions between the two visual cue controls in the sequential conditions were correlated, while Weber fractions between the two visual cue controls in the simultaneous conditions were not related.
extremely significantqualified
A probability of p < 0.10 was considered as marginally significant, of p < 0.05 as significant, of p < 0.01 as highly significant and of p < 0.001 as extremely significant.
Distribution of Musical Subgroups Across the Clusters The cluster distribution of the three musical subgroups showed highly significant differences ( χ 2 = 40.486, p < 0.001).
Half of the high TCT-DP group came from the fourth-cluster members ( n = 10) and this difference in distributions was highly significant, χ 2 ( df = 3, N = 40) = 16.37, p < 0.001, Cramer’s Φ = 0.64.
The main effect of time pressure was also significant, F (1, 151) = 12.88, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.081, indicating a highly significant difference between the time pressure group and the time delay group ( p < 0.001).
However, a highly significant effect of Valence was found for Bias [ F (1,35) = 29.11, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.45], with significantly higher bias for negative words, and also a main effect of Genotype [ F (1,35) = 6.56, p = 0.02, η p 2 = 0.16], with significantly lower bias in Met carriers than Val homozygotes (see Figure 1 ).
However, a highly significant interaction between valence and expectation was found [ F (1,86) = 82.18, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.489].
The ANOVA with Age group (3), as between SS-factor, Current congruency (2), Preceding congruency (2), and Priming (2), as within-SS factors yielded a highly significant interaction between the effects of Current congruency, Preceding congruency and Priming, F (2, 62) = 418.63, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.87.
We performed a likelihood ratio test of the full model against the model without property.type and the comparison proved highly significant (χ 2 (1) = 25.985, p < 0.001).
These can be easily compared with the average reading times in (10): Pearson correlation between average reading times and log(FRC) is extremely significant: r (7) = 0.98, p < 0.001.
The intercept was highly significant ( F = 306.954, p < 0.001, Partial η 2 = 0.448), indicating a strong overall model fit.
In this experiment, participants reported self-caught mind-blanking in two back-to-back reading periods; a decreasing trend of reports over time occurred within each reading period, F time(1, 212) = 45.14, p < 0.001, but total mind-blanking did not differ between the two periods, F period(1, 212) = 1.69, p = 0.20 (3b).
When applied to the active conditions ( Figures 11B and 12B ) the effect of lobe becomes highly significant, F (1,60) = 184, p < 0.001, where the frontal lobe contribution is much larger then that of the temporal lobe, but the effects of beat and rhythm condition are abolished.
As we can see from both Figure 1 and Table 3 , our model shows a highly significant and strong negative effect of Immigration procedural fairness on Lack of human dignity , β = -0.66, p ≤ 0.001, 95% BCa CI [-0.74, -0.53], with close to moderate coefficient of determination (R 2 = 0.43), large effect size (f 2 = 0.77) and large predictive relevance (Q 2 = 0.21).
However, the interaction effect turned out to be highly significant [ F (1,15) = 18.74, p = 0.001, η_p^2 = 0.55].
The standardized regression coefficient of the transformational psychological leadership style and organizational growth performance is 0.630, showing an extremely significant positive correlation ( p < 0.001).