Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learning

A borderline definite marginally mild notably numerically increasing suggestively verging on significant result

Matthew Hankins over at Psychologically Flawed has harvested an amusing list of quotes from studies that failed to find a significant result:


a borderline significant trend (p=0.09)
a clear trend (p<0.09)
a clear, strong trend (p=0.09)
a decreasing trend (p=0.09)
a definite trend (p=0.08)
a favorable trend (p=0.09)
a favourable statistical trend (p=0.09)
a little significant (p<0.1)
a marginal trend (p=0.09)
a marked trend (p=0.07)
a mild trend (p<0.09)
a near-significant trend (p=0.07)
a negative trend (p=0.09)
a nonsignificant trend (p<0.1)
a notable trend (p<0.1)
a numerical increasing trend (p=0.09)
a numerical trend (p=0.09)
a positive trend (p=0.09)
a possible trend (p=0.09)
a pronounced trend (p=0.09)
a reliable trend (p=0.058)
a significant trend (p=0.09)
a slight trend (p<0.09)
a slightly increasing trend (p=0.09)
a small trend (p=0.09)
a statistical trend (p=0.09)
a strong trend (p=0.077)
a suggestive trend (p=0.06)
a weak trend (p=0.09)
a weak trend (p=0.09)
a worrying trend (p=0.07)
all but significant (p=0.055)
almost became significant (p=0.06)
almost but not quite significant (p=0.06)
almost reached statistical significance (p=0.06)
almost significant (p=0.06)
almost significant tendency (p=0.06)
almost statistically significant (p=0.06)
an associative trend (p=0.09)
an expected trend (p=0.08)
an increasing trend (p<0.09)
an inverse trend toward significance (p=0.06)
an observed trend (p=0.06)
an unexpected trend (p=0.09)
an unexplained trend (p=0.09)
approached acceptable levels of statistical significance (p=0.054)
approached but did not quite achieve significance (p>0.05)
approached but fell short of significance (p=0.07)
approached conventional levels of significance (p<0.10)
approached near significance (p=0.06)
approached our criterion of significance (p>0.08)
approached significant (p=0.11)
approached the borderline of significance (p=0.07)
approached the level of significance (p=0.09)
approached trend levels of significance (p0.05)
approached, but did reach, significance (p=0.065)
approaches but fails to achieve a customary level of statistical significance (p=0.154)
approaches statistical significance (p>0.06)
approaching significance (p=0.09)
approximately significant (p=0.053)
approximating significance (p=0.09)
arguably significant (p=0.07)
as good as significant (p=0.0502)
at the brink of significance (p=0.06)
at the cusp of significance (p=0.06)
at the edge of significance (p=0.055)
at the margin of significance (p=0.056)
at the margin of statistical significance (p<0.07)
at the very edge of significance (p=0.053)
barely significant (p=0.07)
better trends of improvement (p=0.056)
bordered on a statistically significant value (p=0.06)
bordered on being significant (p>0.07)
bordered on being statistically significant (p=0.0502)
bordered on but was not less than the accepted level of significance (p>0.05)
bordered on significant (p=0.09)
borderline level of statistical significance (p=0.053)
borderline significant (p=0.09)
close to a marginally significant level (p=0.06)
close to being significant (p=0.06)
close to being statistically significant (p=0.055)
close to borderline significance (p=0.072)
close to the boundary of significance (p=0.06)
closely approaches the brink of significance (p=0.07)
closely approaches the statistical significance (p=0.0669)
closely approximating significance (p>0.05)
closely significant (p=0.058)
close-to-significant (p=0.09)
did not quite achieve acceptable levels of statistical significance (p=0.054)
did not quite achieve significance (p=0.076)
did not quite achieve the conventional levels of significance (p=0.052)
did not quite achieve the threshold for statistical significance (p=0.08)
did not quite attain conventional levels of significance (p=0.07)
did not quite reach a statistically significant level (p=0.108)
did not quite reach statistical significance (p=0.063)
did not reach the traditional level of significance (p=0.10)
did not reach the usually accepted level of clinical significance (p=0.07)
difference was apparent (p=0.07)
direction heading towards significance (p=0.10)
does not reach the conventional significance level (p=0.098)
effectively significant (p=0.051)
essentially significant (p=0.10)
extremely close to significance (p=0.07)
failed to reach significance on this occasion (p=0.09)
failed to reach statistical significance (p=0.06)
fairly close to significance (p=0.065)
fairly significant (p=0.09)
falls just short of standard levels of statistical significance (p=0.06)
fell barely short of significance (p=0.08)
fell just short of statistical significance (p=0.12)
fell narrowly short of significance (p=0.0623)
fell only marginally short of significance (p=0.0879)
felt short of significance (p=0.07)
flirting with conventional levels of significance (p>0.1)
heading towards significance (p=0.086)
highly significant (p=0.09)
hint of significance (p>0.05)
hovered around significance (p = 0.061)
hovered at nearly a significant level (p=0.058)
hovering closer to statistical significance (p=0.076)
hovers on the brink of significance (p=0.055)
in the edge of significance (p=0.059)
inconclusively significant (p=0.070)
indeterminate significance (p=0.08)
indicative significance (p=0.08)
just about significant (p=0.051)
just above the margin of significance (p=0.053)
just barely below the level of significance (p=0.06)
just barely insignificant (p=0.11)
just beyond significance (p=0.06)
just escaped significance (p=0.07)
just failed significance (p=0.057)
just failed to be significant (p=0.072)
just failed to reach statistical significance (p=0.06)
just failing to reach statistical significance (p=0.06)
just fails to reach conventional levels of statistical significance (p=0.07)
just lacked significance (p=0.053)
just missed being statistically significant (p=0.06)
just missing significance (p=0.07)
just over the limits of statistical significance (p=0.06)
just short of significance (p=0.07)
just shy of significance (p=0.053)
just skirting the boundary of significance (p=0.052)
just tottering on the brink of significance at the 0.05 level
leaning towards significance (p=0.15)
leaning towards statistical significance (p=0.06)
loosely significant (p=0.10)
marginal significance (p=0.07)
marginally insignificant (p=0.08)
marginally nonsignificant (p=0.096)
marginally significant (p>=0.1)
marginally significant tendency (p=0.08)
marginally statistically significant (p=0.08)
may not be significant (p=0.06)
mildly significant (p=0.07)
moderately significant (p>0.11)
modestly significant (p=0.09)
near limit significance (p=0.073)
near miss of statistical significance (p>0.1)
near nominal significance (p=0.064)
near significance (p=0.07)
near to statistical significance (p=0.056)
near/possible significance(p=0.0661)
near-borderline significance (p=0.10)
near-certain significance (p=0.07)
nearly approaches statistical significance (p=0.079)
nearly borderline significance (p=0.052)
nearly reached a significant level (p=0.07)
nearly reaching the level of significance (p<0.06)
nearly significant (p=0.06)
nearly significant tendency (p=0.06)
nearly, but not quite significant (p>0.06)
near-marginal significance (p=0.18)
near-significant (p=0.09)
near-to-significance (p=0.093)
near-trend significance (p=0.11)
nominally significant (p=0.08)
non-insignificant result (p=0.500)
non-significant in the statistical sense (p>0.05
not absolutely significant but very probably so (p>0.05)
not as significant (p=0.06)
not clearly significant (p=0.08)
not completely significant (p=0.07)
not conventionally significant (p=0.089), but..
not currently significant (p=0.06)
not decisively significant (p=0.106)
not entirely significant (p=0.10)
not exactly significant (p=0.052)
not formally significant (p=0.06)
not fully significant (p=0.085)
not highly significant (p=0.089)
not insignificant (p=0.056)
not markedly significant (p=0.06)
not non-significant (p>0.1)
not numerically significant (p>0.05)
not overly significant (p>0.08)
not quite borderline significance (p>=0.089)
not quite reach the level of significance (p=0.07)
not quite significant (p=0.118)
not quite within the conventional bounds of statistical significance (p=0.12)
not reliably significant (p=0.091)
not significant by conventional standards (p=0.10)
not significant in the narrow sense of the word (p=0.29)
not significantly significant but..clinically meaningful (p=0.072)
not strictly significant (p=0.06)
not strictly speaking significant (p=0.057)
not strongly significant (p=0.08)
not technically significant (p=0.06)
not that significant (p=0.08)
not too distant from statistical significance at the 10% level
not too far from significant at the 10% level
not totally significant (p=0.09)
not very definitely significant (p=0.08)
not very significant (p=0.1)
not wholly significant (p>0.1)
not yet significant (p=0.09)
noticeably significant (p=0.055)
on the boundary of significance (p=0.055)
on the brink of significance (p=0.052)
on the cusp of conventional statistical significance (p=0.054)
on the cusp of significance (p=0.058)
on the edge of significance (p>0.08)
on the limit to significant (p=0.06)
on the margin of significance (p=0.051)
only a little short of significance (p>0.05)
only just insignificant (p>0.10)
only just missed significance at the 5% level
only slightly less than significant (p=0.08)
only slightly non-significant (p=0.0738)
partial significance (p>0.09)
partially significant (p=0.08)
partly significant (p=0.08)
possibly significant (0.05<p>0.10)
potentially significant (p>0.1)
practically significant (p=0.06)
probably not significant (p>0.25)
provisionally significant (p=0.073)
quasi-significant (p=0.09)
quite close to significance at the 10% level (p=0.104)
quite significant (p=0.07)
rather marginal significance (p>0.10)
reached near significance (p=0.07)
reasonably significant (p=0.07)
remarkably close to significance (p=0.05009)
resides on the edge of significance (p=0.10)
roughly significant (p>0.1)
scarcely significant (0.05<p>0.1)
significant at the .07 level
significant tendency (p=0.09)
significant to some degree (0<p>1)
significant, or close to significant effects (p=0.08, p=0.05)
significantly better overall (p=0.051)
significantly significant (p=0.065)
similar but not nonsignificant trends (p>0.05)
slight non-significance (p=0.06)
slight significance (p=0.128)
slight tendency toward significance (p=0.086)
slightly exceeded significance level (p=0.06)
slightly failed to reach statistical significance (p=0.061)
slightly insignificant (p=0.07)
slightly marginally significant (p=0.06)
slightly significant (p=0.09)
somewhat marginally significant (p>0.055)
somewhat short of significance (p=0.07)
somewhat significant (p=0.23)
strong trend toward significance (p=0.08)
sufficiently close to significance (p = 0.07)
suggestive of a significant trend (p=0.08)
suggestive of statistical significance (p=0.06)
suggestively significant (p=0.064)
tantalisingly close to significance (p=0.104)
teetering on the brink of significance (p=0.06)
tend to significant (p>0.1)
tended to approach significance (p=0.09)
tended to be significant (p=0.06)
tended toward significance (p=0.13)
tendency toward significance (p approaching 0.1)
tendency toward statistical significance (p=0.07)
tends to approach significance (p=0.12)
tentatively significant (p=0.107)
too far from significance (p=0.12)
trend bordering on statistical significance (p=0.066)
trend in a significant direction (p=0.09)
trend in the direction of significance (p=0.089)
trend toward (p>0.07)
trending towards significance (p>0.15)
trending towards significant (p=0.099)
uncertain significance (p>0.07)
vaguely significant (p>0.2)
verging on significance (p=0.056)
very close to significant (p=0.11)
very closely approaches the conventional significance level (p=0.055)
very nearly significant (p=0.0656)
very slightly non-significant (p=0.10)
virtually significant (p=0.059)
weak significance (p>0.10)
weak trend toward significance (p=0.12)
weakened..significance (p=0.06)
weakly non-significant (p=0.07)
weakly significant (p=0.11)
well-nigh significant (p=0.11)

We can umm and ahh all day about how to describe a not significant result and where words begin to become misleading but the important thing is that these studies were published and didn’t disappear into the file drawer.

For a great set of further reading on the topic check out Chris Chambers’ lecture slides from a lecture a couple of days ago at Sussex University. Also in case you missed it, check out my post from earlier this week The Mystery of the Missing Experiments which seems to be generating a somewhat fascinating discussion in the comments.

To keep up to date with this blog you can follow Neurobonkers on TwitterFacebookGoogle+RSS or join the mailing list.

Image Credit: Shutterstock/Anisha Creations

Is the universe a graveyard? This theory suggests humanity may be alone.

Ever since we've had the technology, we've looked to the stars in search of alien life. It's assumed that we're looking because we want to find other life in the universe, but what if we're looking to make sure there isn't any?

According to the Great Filter theory, Earth might be one of the only planets with intelligent life. And that's a good thing (NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team [STScI/AURA]).
Surprising Science

Here's an equation, and a rather distressing one at that: N = R* × fP × ne × f1 × fi × fc × L. It's the Drake equation, and it describes the number of alien civilizations in our galaxy with whom we might be able to communicate. Its terms correspond to values such as the fraction of stars with planets, the fraction of planets on which life could emerge, the fraction of planets that can support intelligent life, and so on. Using conservative estimates, the minimum result of this equation is 20. There ought to be 20 intelligent alien civilizations in the Milky Way that we can contact and who can contact us. But there aren't any.

Keep reading Show less

The key to better quality education? Make students feel valued.

Building a personal connection with students can counteract some negative side effects of remote learning.

Future of Learning
  • Not being able to engage with students in-person due to the pandemic has presented several new challenges for educators, both technical and social. Digital tools have changed the way we all think about learning, but George Couros argues that more needs to be done to make up for what has been lost during "emergency remote teaching."
  • One interesting way he has seen to bridge that gap and strengthen teacher-student and student-student relationships is through an event called Identity Day. Giving students the opportunity to share something they are passionate about makes them feel more connected and gets them involved in their education.
  • "My hope is that we take these skills and these abilities we're developing through this process and we actually become so much better for our kids when we get back to our face-to-face setting," Couros says. He adds that while no one can predict the future, we can all do our part to adapt to it.
Keep reading Show less

Study details the negative environmental impact of online shopping

Frequent shopping for single items adds to our carbon footprint.

A truck pulls out of a large Walmart regional distribution center on June 6, 2019 in Washington, Utah.

Photo by George Frey/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A new study shows e-commerce sites like Amazon leave larger greenhouse gas footprints than retail stores.
  • Ordering online from retail stores has an even smaller footprint than going to the store yourself.
  • Greening efforts by major e-commerce sites won't curb wasteful consumer habits. Consolidating online orders can make a difference.
Keep reading Show less
Personal Growth

Childhood sleeping problems may signal mental disorders later in life

Chronic irregular sleep in children was associated with psychotic experiences in adolescence, according to a recent study out of the University of Birmingham's School of Psychology.

Scroll down to load more…
Quantcast