Barely Significant
← all phrases

“marginally significant”

26,083 sentences · 26,083 papers · 36,483 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p>=0.1

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

Participant 1 (stock ball: finger-spin topsidespin) shows gains in physical performance for the following parameters: spin rate ω (marginally significant), torques T R and T s (marginally significant), and power P (marginally significant).
It is also of note that, despite the lack of norms, the marginally significant difference found between scores from the in-person and online groups in the 2-Back task seem to have been due to a lower performance of the in-person group (mean±SD 0.27±0.17) because the online group (0.37±0.15) presented results in this task that are very similar (0.35±0.13) to those found by Zanini (2021) , in which all participants were tested in person.
Although our final multivariate models showed that recovery length was a significant correlate only for women, bivariate tests of recovery length were highly significant for both genders, and the marginally significant multivariate association for men was not inconsistent with that estimated for women.
The results showed that the RAI in PE and the five types of motivation in leisure-time PA had significant or marginally significant chain-mediating effects on the relationship between perceived mastery- and performance-oriented motivational climates and the stage of exercise behavior change, PA types, and high-intensity PA ( p s < 0.10).
Specifically, participants in the pre-formed group condition rated the robot as more positive on usefulness ( M = 5.30, SD = 1.42) and attitude ( M = 5.53, SD = 1.28; marginally significant) and rated stronger norms for interacting with it ( M = 4.64, SD = 1.54) then participants in the individual condition (usefulness M = 4.48, SD = 1.30; attitude M = 4.72, SD = 1.47; interacting with that M = 3.86, SD = 1.23).
Exploratory aim 3: Group differences in framing effects in probabilities Our results confirm the typical choice pattern consistent with the certainty effect (option A in the first lottery and option D in the second lottery), as we found that participants try to avoid a decreased sure loss of 1% more often (χ 2 = 3.457, p = 0.063, two-sample test for equality of proportions) when it decreases from 1% to 0% (50% of all participants) than a decrease from 90% to 89% to receive nothing (33.33% of all participants, see Fig 4 ), albeit this effect is marginally significant.