Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally non-significantP = 0.0561.1× alpha
A General Linear Model with (1) mean heart rate as a continuous predictor, (2) snout-vent length and body mass at birth as dependent variables, and (3) embryo positioning and clutch of origin as categorical predictors yielded a marginally non-significant effect of embryo positioning F 2, 38 = 3.11; P = 0.056—see Fig. 5 ).
just missed significancep = 0.0561.1× alpha
Subjective effort Although subjective effort increased in both groups relative to the control condition (subliminal: control baseline, 5.94 ± 0.42; subliminal condition, 6.27 ± 0.41; supraliminal: control baseline, 5.83 ± 0.38; supraliminal condition, 6.33 ± 0.43), the two-way ANOVA revealed that the effect of Condition just missed significance ( F (1,34) = 3.899; MSE = 0.801; p = 0.056; effect size: partial η 2 = 0.103).
approached significancep = 0.0561.1× alpha
Related to this point, it is noteworthy that the control group in our study included 16 medical students who, despite their more advanced understanding of the cardiovascular system, performed on average worse than the traders on the counting task (65.9 versus 78.2), although this difference only approached significance (p = 0.056, N = 34).
tendency towards significancep = 0.0561.1× alpha
The effects of the mindfulness training remained significant for proenvironmental choices (Group × Session: β = − 0.68, z = 2.38, p = 0.017), proenvironmental decision times (Group × Session × Choice: β = 0.08, t (68) = 2.51, p = 0.01), and showed a tendency towards significance for prosocial decision times (Group × Session × Choice: β = 0.05, t (64) = 1.95, p = 0.056), mirroring the main results.
approached significancep = 0.0561.1× alpha
The main effect of visual stimuli position approached significance ( F (1,13) = 4.395, p = 0.056, Ƞ2p = 0.253), suggesting a trend for larger (i.e. more negative) PSS values for visual stimuli presented in near space with regard to the trunk (M = −9.897, SD = 11.546) than for visual stimuli presented further away (M = −2.401, SD = 14.893).
almost significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Biological significance of iris flecking A general linear model showed a significant sexual difference in total iris flecking (Table 1 ), with males having a smaller amount of iris flecking than females (difference: 1.27, p = 0.02) and an almost significant relationship between total iris flecking and wing length (slope: −0.07, p = 0.057).