## 4 Statistical Results and Analysis
### Case 2 Results and Analysis  
Case 2 presents complete results and analysis of the experiment performed. First, we observe user self-reported results as well as statistical analysis of these results using the data on NASA task load score (NASA-TLX). Secondly, we analyze statistical results of P-Scores measured in experimentation for every participant, to study situational awareness, individual team member performance, and HMT performance. From there, these analyses will help us validate research questions 1-4 and draw significant rules to standardize HMTs. In Figure 8, we present NASA-TLX parameter ranking results for all 52 participants. It can be observed that the participants who used a VBSA as a teammate in treating patients have very low PD, Frustration, and TD, while their overall performance also stood high based on weighted participants' self scores. Figure 9 and Table 5 present the data for overall NASA-TLX, which is weighted and scaled. Based on one-tailed T-Test on NASA-TLX overall performance score for different groups, we can observe that there is statistically significant performance difference between native and non-native speakers (\(p\) = 0.38 for \(p\)-values \(<0.05\)) as well as for experts and amateurs (\(p\) = 0.22 for \(p\) \(<0.05\)) who are new to the treatment process. This can be interpreted as difficulty in communication with English language, and this interpretation of result also validates our Case 1 findings. Now, when it comes to experts, they already know the process so it takes less time for them to understand VBSA, and they \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Source of Variation** & **SS** & **df** & **MS** & **F** & \(p\)**-Value** & **F crit** \\ \hline Control & 685.1610 & 5 & 137.0322 & 1.3952 & 0.0281 & 2.2643 \\ Experiment & 72,522.8686 & 1 & 72,522.86 & 738.4072 & 1.3285 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-65}\) & 3.8936 \\ \hline Control vs. Experiment & 1053.4348 & 5 & 210.6869 & 2.1451 & 0.0421 & 2.2643 \\
17,678.7493 & 180 & 98.2152 & & & \\ \hline Total & 91,940.2138 & 191 & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Two way ANOVA with replication analysis of Pscore and execution time. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Source of Variation** & **SS** & **df** & **MS** & **F** & \(p\)**-Value** & **F crit** \\ \hline Control & 97.4654 & 5 & 19.4930 & 25.7288 & 1.5130 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-19}\) & 2.2643 \\ Experiment & 2030.9911 & 1 & 2030.9911 & 2680.6986 & 4.789 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-110}\) & 3.8936 \\ \hline Control vs. Experiment & 5.0054 & 5 & 1.0010 & 1.3213 & 0.2569 & 2.2643 \\
136.3743 & 180 & 0.7576 & & & \\ \hline Total & 2269.8362 & 191 & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Two way ANOVA with replication analysis of P-score. here shows that female participants' performance is significantly better compared to male participants as a group. The self-rated TLX scores are very similar to native and non-native speakers who interacted with VBSA, but their measured performance showed a significant difference. The conclusions we can draw from these results are that human teammate self analysis of team performance is significantly varying compared to observed measurement. Performance scores (P-Score) were calculated based on Equations (1) and (2). The P-scores are based on data collected by observers (Task success) and VBSA (Human Error, SA error), which is not self reported. P-score provides on overview of how an HMT performed with respect to task success and how individual team member performed and contributed to that success. P-score can give nuanced information about the effects of each parameter on the overall task success. Further analysis for statistical results are presented in Tables 5-10. For this analysis, the sample sizes are evened through random selection.