Excerpts

According to the sequential reciprocity model, the total effects of group interaction on purpose in life ( β = 0.130, p < 0.05; see Table 4 ) and on life satisfaction ( β = 0.100, p < 0.05) were significant; its effect on personal growth was also marginally significant ( β = 0.085, p = 0.059).

Among the health variables only the sleep quality score showed borderline significance ( p = 0.0594).

The Externalizing Problems Domain Summary approached significance ( p = 0.06) following the intervention period (see Table 5 ).

As demonstrated in Table 4 , Model 1 (without moderators) highlights that PA parenting practices were significantly associated with adolescents’ self-report of MVPA and that there was a trend towards significance ( p = 0.06) with adolescents’ MVPA measured by accelerometry.

Authoritative parenting practice showed a marginally significant difference ( p = 0.06) by adolescent sex, with a higher authoritative score among parents of boys.

Using the internet for Facebook/e-mail/web-browsing was borderline significant for girls ( p = 0.06) in the unadjusted model and non-significant in the adjusted model.

In the ACC of facial recognition, there was a marginally significant interaction effect between musical emotion level and measure ( F (2, 60) = 3.46, p = 0.06, η p 2 = 0.06).

As a result, there was a significant correlation between the intervention group and ΔDASS-anxiety ( r = 0.35, p < 0.05); ΔDASS-depression and ΔDASS-stress showed a marginally significant correlation ( r = 0.29, p = 0.06; r = 0.26, p = 0.09, respectively).

Importantly, the interaction between purchase decision response and green product type was marginally significant, F (1, 34) = 3.79, p = 0.060, η p 2 = 0.10.

For each of these outcome measures, no significant effect of the overall time variable was seen for the whole study period, except for a marginally significant decrease in total treatment contacts ( p = 0.06) over time.

Marginally significant increases (tendency) ( p = 0.060) were observed for task-approach goals.

Although the variation in practice across grades was only marginally significant ( p = 0.06), Grade 9 learners reported the highest level of hygiene practice (M = 0.54), indicating a possible trend.

Additionally, mothers with lower education levels consumed more alcohol than those with higher education levels, but this association was marginally significant (12.2% vs. 6.2%, respectively; p = 0.06). 3.2.

T-tests on mean percentage of CRs acquired block by block confirmed significant differences between blocks 1 and 3 (p = 0.01), blocks 1 and 4 (p = 0.001), blocks 1 and 6 (p = 0.002), and marginal significance between blocks 1 and 5 (p = 0.06) during delay conditioning.

Due to the small number of participants borderline significant results (p < 0.06) were also retained in the final models and are also presented.

The correlation between sitting time and lapses of attention approached significance ( r = 0.16, p = 0.06— Figure A1 ).

The increase in NE from pre to post ASD approached significance ( p = 0.06).

Therefore, significant (α ≤ 0.05) cooking pulmonary function changes at the study cohort level were not observed, although a moderately significant decline in FEV1/FVC during cooking was determined ( p = 0.06).

The difference in scores for mental health approached significance (F = 2.488, P = 0.06), while there were no significant differences in resilience (F = 1.389, P = 0.25) among the students of the four disciplines.

Being “not at all” anxious was a marginally significant predictor of weight loss (B = 0.83, p = 0.06).

The moderator variable, the interaction between prime and extraversion, was a marginally significant predictor of Risk-Taking in the GDT, F (3,69) = 2.54, p = 0.06.

Furthermore, the SoL supermarkets (level 1) increased the sale of oatmeal by 31% ( p = 0.003) and there was a borderline significant increase in the sale of vegetables (22%; p = 0.06) and dried fruit (60%; p = 0.06) compared to the control area (level 3).

Perceived online social support did not have a strong direct effect on the drive for thinness, though the effect was weak and marginally significant (β = −0.11, p = 0.06; CI = −0.61; 0.01).

77.7%, p = 0.02), whereas perceived severity was only marginally significant (91.1% vs. 78.5%, p = 0.06).

SES differences were less pronounced upon stratification, with trend tests significant only among females ( p = 0.004), and marginally significant among Hispanic males ( p = 0.06).