Excerpts

Second, emotional engagement showed a near-significant pattern ( p = 0.066), with a small effect size (d = 0.21).

A near-significant indirect path ( p = 0.066) between non-clinical experience and likelihood of future use through average negative rating was also found.

In the 6-year-old group, the difference in helping behavior between the time delay condition ( M = 0.81, SD = 0.32) and the time pressure condition ( M = 0.58, SD = 0.43) was marginally significant, p = 0.066.

The frontal cluster reaches a trend toward significance [ t (24) = −1.92, p = 0.066; |d| = 0.38], the right temporal [ t (24) = 0.38, p = 0.705; d = 0.08 ] and the centro-parietal [ t (24) = −0.83, p = 0.413; |d| = 0.17] clusters do not yield significant results, respectively (see Figures 3 , 4 ).

Maximum Blink Duration approached significance (1, 52) = 3.526, p = 0.066, η 2 p = 0.064.

Separately, the two-way interaction of Priming × Sequence on pain ratings was marginally significant to painful shocks ( F (1,17) = 3.86, p = 0.066), but insignificant to non-painful ratings ( F (1,17) = 0.16, p > 0.5).

Notably, representational preference approached significance in the L2→L1 condition ( t = −1.860, p = 0.066; see Table 4 ).

There was a marginally significant difference for post-test [ F (2, 62) = 2.84, p = 0.066].

Backward masking reduced target visibility [ F (1,14) = 92.73], and close proximity was marginally significant in reducing target visibility [ F (1,14) = 3.96, p = 0.066].

The Part factor was not significant for d-prime, F (3, 33) = 1.39, p = 0.26, and marginally significant for RT, F (3, 33) = 2.63, p = 0.066, indicating a trend toward acceleration of the responses.

This result was, however, only marginally significant ( b = −0.36, p = 0.066).

More direct to our hypothesis, the interaction between week and country was marginally significant [ F (4,526) = 2.22, p = 0.066, η2 = 0.02)].

The results of time estimation showed that the difference between the experimental and control groups was marginally significant, t (55) = 1.87, p = 0.066, Cohen’s d = 0.5, and that the experimental group ( M = 7.57 s, SD = 3.63) was smaller than the control group ( M = 9.34 s, SD = 3.41).

In the post-verb region, there was a marginally significant interaction of verb and structure type ( p = 0.066), but no significant effect was observed in other eye-movement measures.

Only when exogenous cue was presented in the central location of hearing participants, the facilitation effect was marginally significant, t (33) = 1.90, p = 0.066.

In addition to the main effects, there were marginally significant Target Number × Visibility ( F (1, 9) = 4.37, p = 0.066, η p 2 = 0.33) and Target Number × Task Perturbation ( F (1, 9) = 4.79, p = 0.056, η p 2 = 0.35) interactions.

Directionally consistent with our hypotheses, this analysis revealed that higher status trials had a marginally significant higher proportion of donors than lower status ones, p = 0.066.

Further, we found that the difference in the amount of parents’ persistence-focused language directed to boys and girls approached significance t (29)=1.04, p =0.066, 95% CI[−0.15, 0.50], with parents using more persistence-focused utterances with girls ( M =0.13, SD =0.16) than with boys ( M =0.07, SD =0.12).

The fixed effects omnibus tests indicated a marginally significant effect for role of session participant ( F = 3.38, p = 0.066) and a significant effect for Order of OD-session ( F = 4.07, p = 0.044), suggesting that these variables were associated with the SRS scores.

Mechanisms of motor control in handwriting readiness In the integrated structural model, while Pencil Grip showed a marginally significant positive association with Writing Performance (β = 0.137, p = 0.066), its direct impact appeared to be partially suppressed by the inclusion of the overarching VMI-Performance factor.

A supplementary sensitivity analysis decomposing ARSME into behavioral engagement and psychological investment components revealed that psychological investment showed a marginally significant prospective effect on body dissatisfaction ( β = 0.08, p = 0.066), while behavioral screen time did not, providing preliminary support for cognitive-processing-focused interventions.

These main effects were qualified by a marginally significant comprehensibility × belief consistency interaction, F (1, 42) = 3.56, p = 0.066, ηp2 = 0.078, OP = 0.45 (see Figure 1 ).

In contrast, for males the three-way interaction was marginally significant (LRT: χ 2 = 3.37, df = 3, p = 0.066, Figure 4 ).

The effect of sex at baseline only approached significance for motor originality ( p = 0.066, with males tending to be generally more original than females) but did not differentially influence the size of the intervention effect in males and females.

For Hypothesis 3 , the regression results showed that participants’ maximum level of joy had an approximately significant association with self-perceived persistence at the level 0.05 (β = 0.002, p = 0.066), but we did not confirm that it related to the help-seeking (β = −0.002, p = 0.210) and self-reliance persistence (β = −0.002, p = 0.347).