The standardized parameter estimates in Table 3 indicated that the alliance with the therapist delivering TAU at the outpatient service at baseline was associated with all aspects of patient motivation to change (i.e., autonomous motivation, ability and importance to change and a trend toward significance for controlled motivation, p = 0.06).
Visual similarity (pseudo: 0.17; characters: 0.20) impaired memory much more than semantic similarity [0.04; t (19) = 4.35, p < 0.0005], though the latter effect was nearly significant [ t (20) = 2.06, p < 0.06].
However, more women in cluster 2 endorsed significant distress [χ 2 (2) = 23.67, p < 0.001], and nearly significant impact on functioning [χ 2 (2) = 5.51, p = 0.060, data not shown].
Results for the Non-Risks items are marginally significant ( p = 0.06), showing a tendency to decrease self-risk behaviors: the mean score and standard deviation at pre-test were T0: M = 50.03, SD = 11.48, while at post-test T1: M = 44.35, SD = 10.99.
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).
Specifically, mothers’ self-construal had a significant effect on sensitive parenting ( b = 0.43, p = 0.043), whereas efficacy approached but did not reach significance ( b = 0.36, p = 0.06).
Patients tended to remember more negative words relative to positive words compared to healthy controls at borderline significance ( p = 0.06), and affective memory biases were negatively associated with depressive symptoms across the two groups at borderline significance ( p = 0.07), however, the effect sizes were small.
We observed a main overall effect of group on VAMT Bias scores across IMR, STM, and LTM, at a statistical trend level ( p = 0.06), where patients with MDD tended to recall more negative words than positive words compared to healthy controls who recalled more positive words compared to negative words.
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.
During the unrestricted night, we found a positive correlation approaching significance between age and performance change ( r = 0.42; n = 22; p = 0.06) so that with increasing age, performance improved from immediate to delayed testing.
Our moderating prediction was supported by the marginally significant interaction between environmental orderliness and trait self-control, F (1148) = 3.58, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.02.
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.
Sixteen year-olds performed better than the12-year-olds (mean differences = 2.50, 95% CI [0.32, 4.69], p < 0.05), yet 15 year-olds showed a trend of outperforming the 12-year-olds (mean differences = 2.27, 95% CI [−0.050, 4.58], p = 0.06).
The age differences during post-test were marginally significant [χ 2 (2, N = 342) = 5.63, p = 0.06, Cramer’s V = 0.13], indicating, in line with this latter finding, that the adults tended to choose the teacher less often than did the 7- and 10-year-olds.
Autonomous talk There was a main effect of event valence on mothers’ autonomous talk, χ 2 (1, N = 141) = 14.01, p < 0.001, φ = 0.32, qualified by a marginally significant Culture × Valence interaction, χ 2 (2, N = 141) = 5.61, p = 0.06, φ = 0.20.
Results indicated significant differences for allocation to spouse, F (2, 417) = 9.30, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.04, but only marginally significant for allocation to parent, F (2, 417) = 2.80, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 01. and child [ F (2, 417) = 2.80, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.01].
However, for conventional affective arousal index Aff(Ar.c) , the session × group interaction was marginally significant ( F (1, 36) = 3.77, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.10).
Indeed, the effect of category on mirror recognition cost was marginally significant ( p = 0.06).
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].
the control group, the Domain × Time × Condition effect approached significance, F (2, 142) = 2.84, p = 0.06, partial η 2 = 0.038, suggesting that the combined treatment effect was not uniform across motivational domains.
These difference was significant ( p = 0.008) or marginally significant ( p = 0.06) in the experiment 2, which meant the interference of inter-character spaces and non-word spaces was appeared on the familiar format.
Time of testing approached significance ( p = 0.06), because participants tended to make more errors during quarantine (mean = 1.17) than before it (mean = 0.96).
bilingual) as between-subject factors revealed that the effect of stimulus type was marginally significant [ F (1,112) = 3.71, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.09].
It should also be noted that although the interaction of worries with HWS-PE was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06), the same trend was observed (i.e., that the effect of COVID-19 worries on anxiety was stronger among individuals with low HWS-PE).
Subsequent per-group analyses only yielded a marginally significant main effect of Condition for the L1 group's total viewing times [ F 1(2, 64) = 2.98, p = 0.06; F 2(2, 34) = 2.5, p = 0.09], and a marginal one in the by-items analysis for the L2 group's rereading times [ F 1(2, 66) = 2.46, p = 0.09; F 2(2, 34) = 0.85, p = 0.43], however.