# A Hybrid Recommender System for HCI Design Pattern Recommendations
## 6 Results
### Post-Test Questionnaire Results  
The participants' results from the post-test questionnaires were collected and analyzed. We provide the descriptive statistics concerning the 13 questions of the post-test questionnaire in Table 6. Along with Cronbach alpha, mean, and standard deviation (SD) values, the distribution of answers for each question item was also calculated. Figures 19-22 show a divergent stacked bar that illustrates the distribution of answers provided by the participants to perceived system quality, belief, attitude, and behavioral intention layer, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Layer** & **Question** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Perceived system quality} & Q1 & 3.91 & 0.95 \\  & Q2 & 3.41 & 1.25 \\  & Q3 & 3.33 & 1.31 \\  & Q4 & 4.33 & 0.74 \\  & Q5 & 2.41 & 0.64 \\  & Q6 & 2.41 & 0.64 \\  & Q7 & 3.91 & 0.95 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Belief} & Q8 & 4.33 & 0.84 \\  & Q9 & 4 & 1.08 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Attitude} & Q10 & 3.58 & 0.75 \\  & Q11 & 3.83 & 0.68 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Behavioral intention} & Q12 & 3.33 & 0.74 \\  & Q13 & 3.16 & 0.68 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Post-test questionnaire results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Questionnaire** & **Item** & **Percent** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Knowledge of recommender systems} & Low & 16\% \\  & Medium & 42\% \\  & High & 42\% \\  & Novice & 8\% \\  & Intermediate & 33\% \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Level of expertise with HCI design patterns} & Advanced & 59\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Pre-study questionnaire results. Figure 21: Distribution of answers to post-test questionnaire: attitude layer. Figure 22: Distribution of answers to post-test questionnaire: behavior layer. Figure 20: Distribution of answers to post-test questionnaire: belief layer. third questions, roughly 50% of participants perceived the novelty of the recommended design patterns (Figure 19). Meanwhile, the information sufficiency questions, including Q5 and Q6, received the lowest scores. Among all participants, 42% disagreed and 8% strongly disagreed with Q6 and Q5. The mean value for these questions was equal to 2.41 (SD = 0.64). The results indicated that participants were not well-satisfied with the sufficiency of the information about the system (Q5) and the information provided for the recommended design patterns (Q6). Additionally, Figure 20 shows that a minority of participants were satisfied with the information sufficiency, in which 8% of participants did not agree and 42% disagreed. Moreover, the mean value for the belief layer was high, being equal to 4.12. The answers of this layer reveal that more than 90% of all participants agreed that \"the IDEPAR system helped them to find the relevant design patterns\", involving 50% strongly agreeing for Q7. For Question 8, answers varied between 25% strongly agree and 58% agree. Thus, more than 80% of participants considered the proposed system as useful. In contrast, a minority of participants did not perceive it as useful. Concerning the attitude layer, participants' overall satisfaction was high with a mean value equal to 4 (SD = 1.08), according to the answers of Q9. Among all participants, 60% were satisfied with the recommender system. Furthermore, the mean values for questions Q10 and Q11 were equal to 3.58 (SD = 0.75) and 3.83 (SD = 0.68), respectively. Finally, the mean value for the behavioral intention was equal to 3.24 (SD = 0.71), which reveals that participants found the proposed system moderately acceptable in terms of use intentions. More specifically, the mean values for Q12 and Q13 were equal to 3.33 (SD = 0.74) and 3.16 (SD = 0.68), respectively. Figure 22 shows that a minority of participants were satisfied with the use intention; their answers vary between 33% neither/nor agree and 17% disagree for Q12, and 50% neither/nor agree and 17% disagree for Q13. In order to verify whether the internal consistency test provided reliable results or not, we considered [PERSON]'s alpha criterion.