Excerpts

Most findings were either clearly significant or non-significant, and there were few of the borderline and near-significant results that can result from underpowering, with the exception of the 0.3 correlation ( p = 0.06) between Arithmetic Scaled Score and Backward Digit Span, However, it is still possible that some potentially significant associations were not found due to the relatively small sample size and that this may partially explain the limited number of independent predictors found.

When adjusting for age and gender, we found no changes in the pattern of results with one exception: the direct effect of self-control just missed significance, b = 0.198, β = 0.210, SE = 0.105, p = 0.060.

In addition, students with one or both parents who were high school graduates were reclassified earlier than students whose parents were not high school graduates, reaching marginal significance ( p = 0.06).

In the control group, the effect of experimental conditions tended toward significance only, F (2, 42) = 3, p = 0.06.

For the BMI, the difference between the correlation with the ideal-IRAP and the actual-IRAP just missed significance, t (46) = 1.91, p = 0.06.

This model was marginally significant, F (3,75) = 2.54, r 2 adj = 0.06, p = 0.06, driven by a significant association with declarative memory, but not procedural memory, after controlling for site (see Table 3B for parameter estimates).

An ANOVA-type statistics (ATS) with within-subject factor Moment (interesting, non-interesting) and between-subject factor Person (PwD, MT) showed a significant interaction between Moment and Person [ATS(1) = 15.72, p < 0.001] and a marginally significant effect of Person [ATS(1) = 3.41, p = 0.06].

The relation of attentional control to reading comprehension was marginally significant (0.19, p = 0.06) after controlling for short-term memory, decoding, vocabulary, and inference.

They also showed longer total duration ( U = 770.0, p = 0.017) and a near-significant trend for mean duration of self-touch ( U = 727.5, p = 0.06).

Only for subjective sleep quality, the linear equation produced the largest effect size (the quadratic effect just failed to reach significance, 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).

When we re-examined the time window 350–450 ms for the 23 subjects in the test phase, with Group as between-subjects variable, we observed, besides the significant interaction of Familiarity × Quadrant ( F 3,63 = 5.53, p = 0.003), two interactions with the factor Group: a significant Familiarity × Group ( F 1,21 = 24.3, p < 0.001), and a near-significant three-way Familiarity × Quadrant × Group ( F 3,63 = 2.67, p = 0.06).

Familiarity with App Inventor was a marginally significant predictor of selection to the central position (β = 0.39, p = 0.06).

WS participants also considered avoiding trustworthy faces more than control participants, though the difference in MD was of borderline significance (0.45 vs. 0.29, p = 0.06).

RESULTS Error rates Speakers made more errors in reproducing sentences with weak bias verbs ( M = 0.36, SD = 0.48) than strong bias verbs ( M = 0.31, SD = 0.46), but the difference was only marginally significant (β = -0.25, SE = 0.13, z = -1.90, p = 0.06).

The direct effects of growth mindset on psychological well-being and school engagement in this group are marginally significant ( p = 0.060 and p = 0.054, respectively).

Also, results showed a marginally significant three-way interaction effect of condition and time on impulse control, controlling for the presentation order, F (1,73) = 3.73; p = 0.06; η p 2 = 0.05.

No effect of hearing status was found on the turn duration at low background noise, although the result was close to significance ( p = 0.06).

Fixation counts did not differ significantly between groups, but HD participants showed a trend toward a higher fixation count than controls, t (48) = −1.96, p = 0.06, d = 0.56 ( Figure 2C ).

For game 1 (n-shaped), greater anticipatory SCR was associated (an almost significant correlation) with improved performance, OR (odds ratio) = 0.03, p = 0.06, R 2 = 0.001.

A marginally significant difference was also found in ratings on the Traditional dimension between part time workers and full time workers [ t (323) = -1.89, p = 0.06], which supports the theory that younger workers are less inclined to perceive tradition as favorable in an organization.

Follow-up tests for each level of Order, separately, indicated that there was no Task effect associated with Order 1 [ F (4, 10.88) = 1.86, p = 0.19] nor for Order 2 [ F (4, 10.27) = 2.36, p = 0.12], but there was a nearly significant Task effect for Order 3 [ F (4, 14.39) = 2.87, p = 0.06].

The results revealed a marginally significant main effect of relatedness, F 1 (1, 52) = 3.67, MSE = 1518, p = 0.06; F 2 (1, 11) = 3.48, MSE = 625.11, p = 0.09, showing that response latencies were faster in the related condition than in the unrelated condition.

The main effect of size approached significance [ F (1, 23) = 4.007, p < 0.06; P BIC (H 0 |D) = 0.416] indicating a slightly lower accuracy for search in large sets (95.6%) than for search in small sets (96.7%).

The ANCOVA results indicated a significant main effect of ABST on the proportion of correct responses in TBPM, F (1, 70) = 6.157, p < 0.05, ηp 2 = 0.08, whereas the influence of reading comprehension on response accuracy was marginally non-significant, F (1, 70) = 3.82, p = 0.06, ηp 2 = 0.05.