## 4 Evaluation Study
### Quantitative Findings
#### 4.4.2 Factors Influencing the Collaboration Experience in IVR
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item Statement 1** & **Strongly Disagree** & **Disagree** & **Neutral** & **Agree** & **Strongly Agree** \\ \hline Social presence (Mean = 3.84, SD = 0.64) & & & & & \\ Presence of virtual objects in the game scene & 1 (1.1\%) & 0 & 9 (9.5\%) & 55 (57.9\%) & 30 (31.6\%) \\ Realistic feeling of virtual things & 0 & 5 (5.3\%) & 27 (28.4\%) & 42 (44.2\%) & 21 (22.1\%) \\ Forgot that it was computer-generated & 0 & 13 (13.7\%) & 22 (23.2\%) & 36 (37.9\%) & 24 (25.3\%) \\ Awareness of teammates’ presence & 0 & 6 (6.3\%) & 10 (10.5\%) & 50 (52.6\%) & 29 (30.5\%) \\ Easy communication with teammates & 3 (3.2\%) & 21 (22.1\%) & 25 (26.3\%) & 31 (32.6\%) & 15 (15.8\%) \\ \hline Spatial presence (Mean = 4.21, SD = 0.66) & & & & & \\ A feeling of entering a new world & 0 & 2 (2.1\%) & 4 (4.2\%) & 48 (50.5\%) & 41 (43.2\%) \\ A feeling of being part of the game & 0 & 3 (3.2\%) & 13 (13.7\%) & 41 (43.2\%) & 38 (40.0\%) \\ All my senses were stimulated in the game & 0 & 4 (4.2\%) & 15 (15.8\%) & 43 (45.3\%) & 33 (34.7\%) \\ \hline Collective efficacy (Mean = 3.98, SD = 0.72) & & & & & \\ My group could solve difficult situations. & 0 & 2 (2.1\%) & 16 (16.8\%) & 52 (54.7\%) & 25 (26.3\%) \\ Group members worked harder than expected. & 0 & 4 (4.2\%) & 11 (11.6\%) & 50 (52.6\%) & 30 (31.6\%) \\ Group members worked hard to complete task. & 0 & 1 (1.1\%) & 5 (5.3\%) & 51 (53.7\%) & 38 (40.0\%) \\ My group was effective in finishing the task. & 1 (1.1\%) & 4 (4.2\%) & 26 (27.4\%) & 38 (40.0\%) & 26 (27.4\%) \\ My group did a good job in getting things done. & 0 & 3 (3.2\%) & 23 (24.2\%) & 36 (27.9\%) & 33 (34.7\%) \\ My group effectively fulfilled task requirements. & 0 & 3 (3.2\%) & 23 (24.2\%) & 40 (42.1\%) & 29 (30.5\%) \\ My group accomplished its goals successfully. & 0 & 9 (9.5\%) & 28 (29.5\%) & 35 (36.8\%) & 23 (24.2\%) \\ My group completed its task successfully. & 2 (2.1\%) & 14 (14.7\%) & 22 (23.2\%) & 32 (33.7\%) & 25 (26.3\%) \\ \hline Social experience (Mean = 4.11, SD = 0.66) & & & & & \\ I felt I was not alone. & 1 (1.1\%) & 4 (4.2\%) & 13 (13.75\%) & 46 (48.4\%) & 31 (32.6\%) \\ I felt the group members supported me. & 0 & 2 (2.1\%) & 9 (9.5\%) & 57 (60.0\%) & 27 (28.4\%) \\ I felt I had someone to work with in my group. & 0 & 4 (4.2\%) & 6 (6.3\%) & 52 (54.7\%) & 33 (34.7\%) \\ I felt like a member of my group. & 0 & 1 (1.1\%) & 6 (6.3\%) & 50 (52.6\%) & 38 (40.0\%) \\ I felt connected to others in my group. & 0 & 4 (4.2\%) & 12 (12.6\%) & 52 (54.7\%) & 27 (28.4\%) \\ I felt I could discuss with members of my group. & 2 (2.1\%) & 13 (13.7\%) & 11 (11.6\%) & 40 (42.1\%) & 29 (30.5\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Certain item statements are condensed to fit in the table column. See Appendix A for complete statements.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Descriptive analysis of the collaboration experience in IVR. the results showed that in the final significant model (\(F_{\text{ (2, 92)}}\) = 44.161, \(p\) < 0.001), the IVs explained 47.9% of the variance (\(R^{2}\) = 0.479), and collaboration competence (\(\beta\) = 0.176, \(p\) < 0.05) and social presence (\(\beta\) = 0.626, \(p\) < 0.001) were significant predictors. The collinearity analysis further reported an acceptable multicollinearity level among the independent variables [64]. Table 7 shows the regression model summary.