Excerpts

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.

Critically, however, the difference between these two similarity correlations only approached significance, z = 1.84, p = 0.07.

On the other hand, a significant stimulus type x belt color interaction with large ES (η 2 p = 0.17) for N450 area, but only a trend toward significance ( P = 0.07) for lower N450 area incongruent compared to congruent trials in the WB group.

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.

447), however, a dominance effect was attested, as the study reported the main effect of dominance approaching significance in 20 simultaneous Cantonese-English bilinguals ( p = 0.07), suggesting that the children made fewer head errors as their Cantonese dominance increased.

There was a marginally significant effect of the prevention focus on the level of goal [ F (1,111) = 3.5 , p = 0.07] such that high-prevention respondents were setting directionally lower goal levels compared to the low-prevention respondents.

Within Solo condition, music segments 1 and 5 are statistically lower than other music segments ( p < 0.001) and within Ensemble condition, music segments 1 and 5 are, respectively statistically ( p < 0.001) and marginally significant ( p = 0.07). 4.

We found a marginally significant simple effect of Group, such that ASD participants had lower CC [ B = -0.898; SE = 0.501; Wald Chi-Square = 2.12; p = 0.07; Exp(B) = 0.41]; a simple effect of Repetitive [ B = 0; SE = 0.001; Wald Chi-Square = 3.99; p = 0.046; Exp(B) = 1.00], such that participants who moved faster during the Repetitive motion task, attained more CC in the Following round of the MG.

Marginally significant interaction were observed [ F (1,19) = 3.81, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.17], although no significant main effects of time [ F (1,19) = 2.77, p = 0.11, η 2 = 0.13] or condition [ F (1,19) = 0.231, p = 0.64, η 2 = 0.01] were observed.

Reductions in the correlation between left SFG and right LOC in Patient 2 ( p < 0.05), and right ( p < 0.01) and left (marginally significant: p = 0.07) SMG, and right LOC (marginally significant: p = 0.07) in Patient 3, and were also found.

The effect of HLG approached significance [ F (1,19) = 3.90, p = 0.07], where the visual acuity under HLGY was better than under HLGN.

On the basis of the planned expectation that the blurred-footage training group would improve their performance following training, we conducted a one-tailed t -test to test the significance of the change, with the effect falling just short of significance ( p = 0.07, β = 0.288), though with a moderate measure of effect size ( d = 0.47).

However, we also obtained a marginally significant interaction effect between these two factors, F (2, 308) = 2.66, p = 0.07, η = 0.02.

The direct relationship of the CPRS with hypothetical complacency was approaching significance ( B = -0.17, p = 0.07).

Finally, the effect of constituent order approached significance ( z = 1.8, p = 0.07), driven by the more robust effect obtained in the bilingual participants’ data but lacking in the data from the baseline speakers. 4.2.6 Experiment 2: discussion In Experiment 2, we examined whether English-Russian bilinguals demonstrate alignment with native Russian speakers in their use of prosodic features and constituent order when assigning focus at the phrasal level.

When participants were leaning to the left they tended to ascribe more political statements to left-wing political parties than when leaning to the right, though this effect showed only a trend toward significance, F (1,27) = 3.06, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.12.

The regression analysis showed a significant main effect for spatial ability [β = −0.507, se(HC4) = 0.181, p = 0.007], no main effect of condition [β = 0.703, se(HC4) = 0.399, p = 0.10], and a marginally significant interaction effect between spatial ability and condition [β = 0.224, se(HC4) = 0.123, p = 0.07].

Post-hoc analyses revealed a marginally significant effect of gender on reading fluency in year 1, in year 1, F (1, 1,455) = 3.36, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.00, indicating that females’ reading fluency ( m = 24.04) was slightly lower than that of males’ ( m = 25.08, SD = 10.48).

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.

No significant intervention effect was found for SDQ; however, this was close to the boundary of significance ( t 24 = 1.895, p = 0.07).

Furthermore, the difference between positive and neutral words approached significance ( p = 0.07).

The ANOVA revealed a marginally significant effect of Frequency on need satisfaction F (1, 103) = 3.34, p = 0.071, η p 2 = 0.03, 90% CI = [0;0.1].

On the SWM task ( Figure 2A ), an interaction was observed between GA group and demand level that approached significance, F (2.77, 210.83) = 2.43, p = 0.071, partial η 2 = 0.031, ε = 0.694.

In the moderate-fatigue condition, the advantage of external focus further, showing a trend toward significance [ t (29) = 1.86, p = 0.071, d = 0.74].

Moreover, female participants rated the unwanted sexual attention and gender harassment scenarios more negatively than male participants ( P = 0.005 and P = 0.020, respectively), but there was marginally significant gender difference in the ratings for the sexual coercion scenarios ( P = 0.071).