Excerpts

Moreover, the interaction between Language and kind of Verb almost reached significance as well, F (1, 72) = 3.68, MSe = 3490.70, p < 0.06.

Pairwise comparison showed that the difference between sex congruent and incongruent trials in the “above 12” group was not significant for face stimuli ( p = 0.5), but marginally significant for body stimuli ( p = 0.06).

Additionally, mobility showed a trend with poorer performance in Science, such that mobile students scored on average 10.2 points lower ( SE = 5.42, p = 0.06) and were likely to reach proficiency in Science only 89% as often ( OR = 0.89, CI = [0.80–1.01], p = 0.07) as stable students.

( 2011 ) found a marginally significant ( p < 0.06) difference between AEE in highly active individuals (i.e., more positive AEE) and less active individuals ( d = 0.81).

Analyses showed a group effect [ F (1,45) = 27.64, p = 0.000], as WL were higher for children with dyslexia than for children without dyslexia (Estimate = 269, SE = 51) and the morphological condition was close to significance [ F (2,33) = 3.02, p = 0.06].

Compared with participants in the Control arm, those in the Resilience arm reported greater increases in personal resilience post-intervention ( p = 0.02, ES = 0.20, small level) and marginally significant increases at the 3-month ( p = 0.06, ES = 0.20, small level) and 6-month follow-ups ( p = 0.08, ES = 0.22, close to medium level; Figure 4 ).

On the other hand, the interaction was only marginally significant when limited to the two-flanker and four-flanker conditions, F (1, 8) = 5.04, p = 0.06, and was in the opposite direction.

A 2 (Group) × 2 (Run) × 3 (Condition) mixed ANOVA for errors with repeated measures for Run and Condition revealed no significant differences between Groups, F (1, 29) = 1.17, p = 0.29, η 2 = 0.04, no significant effect for Run, F (1, 29) = 2.22, p = 0.14, η 2 = 0.07, no significant effect for the Run × Group interaction, F (1, 29) < 1, a significant trend for the Condition × Group effect, F (2, 58) = 3.04, p = 0.06, η 2 = 0.10, and a significant Run × Condition × Group interaction, F (2, 58) = 5.20, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.15.

It should be noted that subjects showed a trend toward selecting the larger number for the 1 vs. 2 condition ( p = 0.06; Figure 2 ).

The correlated influence of semantic types and language proficiency was marginally significant [ F (1, 44) = 3.57, p = 0.06].

Fifth, although not statistically significant, the baseline difference in total WEPS scores between the intervention and control groups approached significance ( p = 0.06), with the intervention group showing marginally higher initial interest.

Both the pitch frequency and participant factors approached significance: Pitch frequency F ( 3 , 24 ) = 2 . 77 , p = 0 . 06 , η 2 = 0 . 13 ; Participant F ( 2 , 24 ) = 3 . 17 , p = 0 . 06 , η 2 = 0 . 10 , for the vowel /a/.

Interestingly, participants CRT's scores were not significatively correlated neither with reaction times on the task, r (19) = 0.06, p = 0.78 nor with the number of no responses per participant, r (19) = −0.20, p = 0.36, although there was an almost significant trend to correlate with the frequency of “too early” responses, r (19) = −0.41, p = 0.06.

In addition, we found a marginally significant interaction between price levels and payment methods (β = 0.087, p = 0.06, 95% BCI [−0.003 0.177]) such that in comparison to paying in cash, mobile payment effectively enhanced purchase intention for high-price headphones (M high_price_mobile = 53.59% vs.

t, both p < 0.005, suggesting an “all or nothing” attitude toward compliance), individualistic reasons for compliance (while collectivist reasons for compliance were strongly and positively associated with trust, p < 0.001), educational level, time of data collection, and age (the last one showed a marginally significant negative correlation, β = −0.018, p = 0.06).

Over all 25 trials, participants in the ASD group showed a trend toward a greater number of average playsum per trial [ NT = 4.38, ASD = 4.97, t (46) = −1.9, p = 0.06].

This yielded a reduction from 12.7% surface errors before the workshop ( SD 6.5%) to 9.5% ( SD 5.2%) after it, which approached significance, t (6) = 2.26, p = 0.06.

The posterior midline ROI shows a marginally significant interaction Polarity * Truth [F(1, 30) = 3.811, p = 0.06, partial η 2 = 0.113].

The Other × BPQ term approached but did not reach significance ( b = 0.09, SE = 0.05, t = 1.89, p = 0.060); corresponding simple-slope estimates at BPQ = −1/0/+1 SD were 0.00 / 0.02 / 0.05.

which ), caused by lower performance on which than on who questions [ F (1,32) = 10.89, p = 0.002], and a marginally significant effect of group, caused by the HI children performing below the hearing children [ F (1,32) = 3.79, p = 0.06].

While the main effect of Part-Whole Condition was only marginally significant, F (1,37) = 3.75, MSE = 161151.68, p = 0.060, there was a significant Orientation by Part-Whole Condition interaction, F (1,37) = 30.71, MSE = 112415.92, p < 0.001.

The linear trend for this effect, however, was only marginally significant [ F (1, 95) = 3.83, p < 0.06].

At first blush, a change in the number of pumps from the 2nd to the 3rd block emerged, but the difference was only marginally significant, t (22) = 1.95, p = .06.

In L2 learners, follow-up analyses revealed that the effect of grammaticality was only marginally significant in the singular attractor condition ( p = 0.060, d = 0.62), but this effect was absent in the plural attractor condition ( p = 0.840, d = 0.05).

Analyses showed a marginally significant condition effect for negative expectations [ F (1,51) = 3.74, p = 0.06], suggesting larger decreases in negative expectations in the BPS group, compared to the control group at post-training.