Sentences with phrase «significant main effects»

There were significant main effects for group, Wald χ 2 (1) = 51.42, p <.001, and for parent gender, Wald χ 2 (1) = 10.47, p =.001.

Network density did not reveal significant main effects on males» or females» smoking behavior.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant main effects of maternal prenatal smoking and a significant interaction between maternal prenatal smoking and mother's history of antisocial behavior in the prediction of children's probability to display high and rising physical aggression.

Of the four discouraged behaviors, there were no significant main effects or interactions for parents» knowledge of criticism.

We report all significant main effects and interactions (up to three way interactions).

In the three - way - analysis of variance with partnership, age, and education as factors and the AAS depend as continuous dependent variable (N = 1675), three small but relevant significant main effects of partnership, F (1, 1663) = 24.41, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.01, age, F (2, 1663) = 8.56, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.01, and education, F (1, 1663) = 11.92, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.01 were observed.

There were, however, significant main effects for group [F (2,163) = 4.58, p = 0.012] and time [F (1,163) = 11.23, p = 0.001].

We found significant main effects of gender (F1, 137 = 37.53, P < 0.0001) and ETLE (F1, 137 = 10.34, P = 0.002), no main effect of MAOA genotype (F1, 137 = 0.86, P = 0.35), and significant interaction effects for MAOA × ETLE (F1, 137 = 10.13, P = 0.002) and for gender × MAOA × ETLE (F1, 137 = 6.66, P = 0.01).

Statistical analysis revealed significant main effects of gender (F1, 227 = 36.77, P < 0.0001) and ETLE (F1, 227 = 27.50, P < 0.0001), but no main effect of MAOA genotype (F1, 227 = 0.10, P = 0.75).

Study 1 Abuse Perpetration Foshee and colleagues (2005) found significant main effects of treatment condition on psychological abuse perpetration, moderate physical violence perpetration, and sexual violence perpetration.

The results indicate significant main effects of culture and gender for both attachment and loneliness, as well as a significant two - way interaction for family loneliness.

There were no significant main effects for the intervention in child mental, psychomotor or behavioural development.

In line with this, no significant main effects of location or speaker identity, or interactions of identity, location and speech type were found.

Significant main effects or interactions in two - way ANOVA were followed by Sidak's post hoc test to compare sedentary versus exercise mice of each genotype.

However, we noted that the introduction of nonbreastfeeding at 1 y, when the children were 15 mo old, was a significant main effect of the D treatment because 4 women who had not received the D treatment were still providing breastfeeding with complementary foods.

Fisher's protected least significant difference (PLSD) post-hoc tests were used where a significant main effect of the condition variable was observed.

There was also a significant main effect of weight loss on higher protein and carbohydrate intakes as a percentage of energy.

No significant main effect was evident between groups in total kcal, F (1, 22) = 2.10, p = 0.65; carbohydrates, F (1, 22) = 1.70, p = 0.21; fats, F (1, 22) = 0.56, p = 0.46; or proteins consumed, F (1, 22) = 0.01, p = 0.96.

There was no significant main effect in total body fat percent between groups assessed by DXA, F (1, 22) = 0.01, p = 0.992 and in android fat percent between groups, F (1, 22) = 0.01, p = 0.971 (Table 3).

* X indicates a significant main effect at p <.05 for that leadership variable (row) on that context variable (column).

We found a significant main effect for district size on all eight variables from Round One and all three from Round Two of the teacher surveys (see Table 1.6.2).

We found a significant main effect on only two of the six variables on the second round of the principal survey: Principal rating of district shared leadership skills and District policies to support organizational learning.

We found a significant main effect for school size on all eight variables from Round One and all three from Round Two of the teacher surveys.

Looking at the effect of diversity, we find a significant main effect for Principal Self - Rating on Improvement Planning Focus, Principal Rating of District School Improvement Focus, and District Focus on Data - Based Decision Making (see Table C1.6.3 in Appendix C).

Of the six variables from the second round of the principal survey, only one, District Focus on Data - Based Decision Making, showed a significant main effect (F = 3.45, p =.018); principals in urban districts rated it higher than principals in suburban districts.

(*) denotes a significant main effect of speech type (p < 0.050) based on the results of ANOVA presented in Table 2

Results (Table S5) revealed a significant main effect of Maternal behavior (Wald = 12.98, P < 0.001): Puppies raised by mothers exhibiting more maternal behavior were more likely to be released from the program (OR = 3.39).

A 2 (framing: loss vs. foregone - gain) × 2 (social norm: no - norm vs. with - norm) ANOVA performed on the data revealed a significant main effect of framing, F (1,1196) = 6.438, p =.011, r =.073, with larger emission cuts in the foregone - gain than the loss condition, a significant main effect of social norm, F (1,1196) = 13.904, p <.001, r =.107, with larger emission cuts in the with - norm than the no - norm condition, together with a significant interaction, F (1,1196) = 4.363, p =.037.

In terms of personality, Swickert et al. (2002) showed a significant main effect of extraversion on stress in undergraduate students and also provided evidence for the unique prediction of stress by extraversion and social support.

The results of their study revealed that DRD2 had a statistically significant main effect on impulsivity, but DRD4 did not.

In the same model predicting the child being overweight at age 36 mo, there was also no significant main effect of percentage of assertive prompts (OR: 1.62; 95 % CI: 0.48, 5.50) or intrusiveness (OR: 0.74; 95 % CI: 0.48, 1.14).

We found a significant main effect of SDNN (F [4, 165] = 3.55, p = 0.008).

A significant main effect of HF was observed (F [4, 165] = 5.86, p < 0.000).

We found a significant main effect of TP (F [4, 165] = 3.38, p = 0.011).

We observed a significant main effect of LF (F [4, 165] = 2.72, p = 0.031).

A significant main effect of partner presence was found for P2 local peak amplitude, which was significantly higher in the presence (M = 24.74 µV, s.d. = 1.49) compared to the absence (M = 22.90 µV, s.d. = 1.44) condition, b = 3.28, SE = 1.13, P = 0.004, but not for any other outcome measures.

There was a significant main effect of the time of negative affect (pretest - posttest), F (1, 40) = 17.69, p < 0.001, Eta2 = 31 (31 %).

There was a significant main effect for Time on the combined dependent variables, Wilks» Lambda = 0.61, F (10, 40) = 2.59, p <.05, partial eta squared =.36, reflecting a general improvement in family dysfunction scores.

Inspecting the pairwise comparisons, no significant main effect of time was found for this variable, but a significant interaction effect emerged, Wilk's Lambda =.41, F (11, 25) = 3.27, p <.05.

There was no significant main effect for CU traits, but a significant interaction was found for Time and CU traits, Wilks» Lambda = 0.54, F = 3.35, p <.01, partial eta squared =.42.

In the United States, the interaction between relationship type and participant sex was non-significant, however there was a significant main effect for relationship type, Wilks» Lambda =.86, F (2,51) = 4.21, p =.02, partial eta squared =.14.

A 2 (secure / neutral prime) × 2 (positive / negative face) × 2 (high / low anxiety) repeated - measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of target valence [F (1,37) = 9.376, p < 0.01] as well as a significant prime type and target valence interaction [F (1,37) = 6.071, p < 0.05].

There was no significant main effect of prime condition (F = 0.625, p = 0.434), target valence (F = 0.056, p = 0.814), attachment style (F = 0.062, p = 0.804) or any possible interaction on the accuracy of the responses.

For LOT optimism scores, a significant main effect of regulation category was found, F (1, 55) = 6.75, p <.05, partial η2 =.11, such that rapid regulators reported higher levels of optimism (M = 11.24, SD = 2.28) compared with nonregulators (M = 9.15, SD = 3.02).

A significant main effect for attachment style was also found, F (3, 219) = 4.009, p < 0.05.

Note that partner PMQ had a significant main effect on self - rated health only when depression was not included in the model (see b =.04, ns in Model 1 — 2).

There was a significant main effect of maternal AD on the flexibility of mother child dyads.

A significant main effect for attachment style, but not gender, was found with respect to negative adjectives used to describe the mother, F (3, 219) = 4.17, p < 0.05.

We also found a significant main effect of age and ethnicity on some of the ASQ scales.

A significant main effect was found for gender, F (1, 219) = 5.982, p < 0.05.