Excerpts

By adding Group and Group * Period interaction, the model improved with marginal significance ( p = 0.07).

Social anxiety reached a marginally significant main effect, F (1, 92) = 3.33, p = 0.07, ∂η 2 = 0.04, while degree of depressive symptoms did not, F (1, 92) < 0.10, p = 0.76.

For high-frequency words, there was a marginal significance NS effect ( p = 0.07), while for low-frequency words, large neighborhood words had a significantly high accuracy rate than small neighborhood words ( p < 0.001), as shown in Figure 1A .

Time and group revealed a marginally significant interaction, F (1,37) = 3.43, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.09.

At the same time, in 10 out of 18 caregivers, the family strain showed a trend to decrease (FSQ: from 14.6 ± 7.7 to 11.0 ± 6.0, p = 0.07) improving from “strongly recommended” support to within the “range of attention.” Levels of anxiety and depression were substantially unvaried in all caregivers, except for two who asked for help, and whose anxiety levels decreased.

On the other hand, in the related condition, the group effect was close to significance in the participant analysis, t 1 (58) = 1.84, p = 0.07, and it was significant in the item analysis, t 2 (40) = 2.87, p = 0.007.

When examining subdimensions of FT, the burden of depleted FT coping resources (coping FT) was strongly associated with the risk of repeat AC visits (RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.15–1.40, P < 0.001) while material FT burden showed a trend toward association (RR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, P = 0.07).

The analysis of variance revealed a marginally significant difference between the scale values of valence pre and post-training sessions [ F (1, 11) = 3.99; p = 0.07; η 2 = 0.27].

Position showed a trend toward a response compatibility-like effect with faster responses to left-sided targets, χ 2 (1, N = 20) = 3.26, p = 0.07.

The results of the one-sided two-sample T -tests are presented as following: the control group, the participants who were simply asked for a donation, donated more than the first treatment group who were offered the tote bag as a thank-you gift ( p = 0.048, mean.c = 28.76, Sd-c = 25.65, mean.t1 = 24.01, Sd.t1 = 25.74); the difference become insignificant when compared to the second treatment group for whom the statement is given ( p = 0.205, mean.c = 28.76, Sd.c = 25.65, mean.t2 = 27.93, Sd.t2 = 25.42); however, the difference between the control groups is only weakly significant ( p = 0.070, mean.t1 = 24.01, Sd.t1 = 25.74, mean.t2 = 27.93, Sd.t2 = 25.42).

It should be noted that some intertask correlations were trending toward significance at an unadjusted alpha level (0.05) but the relationship differed in each group: orientation and motion were modestly correlated in SZ ( r = 0.39, p = 0.07), size and motion in BD ( r = 0.5, p = 0.06), luminance and motion in CO ( r = 0.4, p = 0.07).

There was, however, a marginal trend toward significance [ t (47) = 1.84, p = 0.07, d = 0.53], whereby ratings in the failure condition tended to be higher than in the loss condition.

Consistent with Experiment 1, there was a weak positive relationship between the false negative rate for a trial and the number of targets in the trial, which was only marginally significant in this experiment [ r (197) = 0.13, p = 0.07], and there was a significant negative relationship between the false positive rate and the number of targets in a trial, r (197) = −0.29, p < 0.001.

The difference in false alarms was significant, t (48) = 3.158, p < 0.01, while the difference in misses approached but did not reach significance, t (48) = 1.844, p = 0.07.

In terms of the d-FRN's statistical analysis from the other-chosen stocks, a 2 (stock owner: self, other) × 10 (electrode: F3, F4, FC1, FC2, Fz, Cz, C3, C4, CP1, and CP2) ANOVA produced a marginally significant main effect of ownership, F (1, 21) = 3.65, p = 0.07, η 2 partial = 0.148.

Response latencies in Range 3 were faster than in Range 4, although this effect was marginally significant [ F (1,7) = 4.72, MSE = 0.02,4, p < 0.07].

In the two-way interaction model, the interaction of percent positivity with relationship quality was marginally significant, p = 0.07, as was the interaction of cosine and relationship quality, p = 0.054.

There was no significant relationship between context effects and scores on consonant, vowel or sentence recognition (the correlation between vowel recognition and gender context effect approached significance; t = 2.32, adjusted p = 0.07).

Post hoc comparisons using repeated contrasts revealed significant differences between Days 2 and 3, F (1,40) = 4.50, p = 0.04, MSE = 101953.72, η p 2 = 0.10, and a marginally significant difference between Days 3 and 4, F (1,40) = 3.59, p = 0.07, MSE = 15668.44, η p 2 = 0.08, suggesting rapid learning after Day 2.

However, age differences in mixing costs were marginally significant on the basis of means, F (1, 41) = 3.50, p = 0.07, η 2 p = 0.08, but not significant for log-transformed RT ( p = 0.75).

For improvement from sight-reading to day 2, technical performance in the interleaved condition was rated as better than the blocked condition by rater 1 (sign test, marginally significant: p = 0.07, see Figure 1 ).

“base + 12 month” condition (0 = base, 1 = base + 12 months) was marginally significant in predicting participants’ willingness to buy the car [ b = 21.01, t (2,379) = 1.83, partial r = -0.04, p = 0.07].

In addition, we found a marginally significant interaction effect between embodiment and attitude, p = 0.07.

The following univariate ANOVAs indicated that following a sad mood induction, participants who received emotionally engaging instructions exhibited a marginally significant greater decline in general mood [ F (1, 26) = 3.70, p = 0.07] and a greater incline in sad rating [ F (1, 26) = 6.24, p < 0.05] than participants who received emotionally disengaging instructions, compared to baseline mood ratings.

However, the simple main effect of the GROUP CONDITION was marginally significant for the transposed-letter nonword condition [ F (1, 29) = 3.43, p = 0.07] but not for the correct word condition [ F (1, 29) = 0.77, p = 0.38].