# Usability Test for an Over-Ground Walking Assistance Robotic Device Based on the Mecanum Wheel
## 3 Results  
### Satisfaction Results for COWAR and OWAR-MW in Physical Therapists and Patients with Stroke  
Table 2 presents the satisfaction levels reported by physical therapists and patients with stroke after walking with the COWAR and OWAR-MW. In all participants (physical therapists and patients with stroke), the OWAR-MW showed a tendency towards lower average satisfaction scores than the COWAR in the three categories (safety, operability and functionality, and convenience). Specifically, in terms of the satisfaction for physical therapists, the OWAR-MW showed significantly lower satisfaction scores in only the safety category (4.02 vs. 3.37, \(p\) < 0.05) than the COWAR. However, in the satisfaction for patients with stroke, the OWAR-MW showed significantly lower satisfaction scores in all three categories (safety: 4.90 vs. 4.04, operability and functionality: 4.83 vs. 4.33, convenience: 4.87 vs. 4.49, \(p\) < 0.05) than the COWAR. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Questions by Categories** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Physical Therapists (n = 9)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Stroke (n = 9)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **COVAR** & **OVAR-MW** & **Changes (G) +** & **COVAR** & **OVAR-MW** & **Changes (N) +** \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Sensitivity} & Does the device safely support the body when learned only? & 4.67 \(\pm\) 0.30 & 3.78 \(\pm\) 1.30 & 0.89 \(\pm\) 1.45 (19.05) & 5.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 4.33 \(\pm\) 1.12 & 0.67 \(\pm\) 1.12 (13.33) \\ \cline{2-7}  & Is there no slipping risk when the device is pushed while stationary? & 4.22 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 3.44 \(\pm\) 1.13 & 0.78 \(\pm\) 0.97 (18.42) & 4.56 \(\pm\) 0.88 & 4.78 \(\pm\) 0.44 & \(-\)0.22 \(\pm\) 1.09 (4.89) \\ \cline{2-7}  & Are there no safety risks during & 4.22 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 3.22 \(\pm\) 1.09 & 1.00 \(\pm\) 1.22 (23.68) \({}^{\star}\) & 5.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 4.11 \(\pm\) 1.05 & 0.89 \(\pm\) 1.05 (17.78) \({}^{\star}\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & Are there no safety risks during & 3.89 \(\pm\) 0.60 & 2.89 \(\pm\) 1.17 & 1.00 \(\pm\) 1.12 (25.71) \({}^{\star}\) & 4.89 \(\pm\) 0.33 & 3.44 \(\pm\) 1.33 & 1.44 \(\pm\) 1.51 (29.55) \({}^{\star}\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & Is the speed of directional changes & 3.56 \(\pm\) 0.88 & 3.22 \(\pm\) 1.09 & 0.33 \(\pm\) 1.50 (9.37) & 5.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 4.00 \(\pm\) 1.22 & 1.00 \(\pm\) 1.22 (20.00) \({}^{\star}\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & Is in place rotation performed safely without risk & 3.56 \(\pm\) 1.13 & 3.33 \(\pm\) 1.00 & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.83 (6.25) & 4.89 \(\pm\) 0.33 & 3.56 \(\pm\) 1.42 & 1.33 \(\pm\) 1.85 (27.27) \({}^{\star}\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & Is the device safe to use without the risk of badly injury? & 4.00 \(\pm\) 0.87 & 3.67 \(\pm\) 1.22 & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.87 (8.33) & 5.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 4.00 \(\pm\) 1.22 & 1.00 \(\pm\) 1.22 (20.00) \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Safety average} & Safety average & 4.02 \(\pm\) 0.83 & 3.37 \(\pm\) 1.13 & 0.65 \(\pm\) 1.15 (162.1) \({}^{\star}\) & 4.90 \(\pm\) 0.39 & 4.04 \(\pm\) 1.18 & 0.87 \(\pm\) 1.31 (17.80) \({}^{\star}\) \\ \cline{2-7}  & Is the operation method easy to understand? & 4.11 \(\pm\) 0.78 & 4.00 \(\pm\) 1.00 & 0.11 \(\pm\) 1.05 (2.70) & 4.44 \(\pm\) 1.13 & 4.33 \(\pm\) 1.00 & 0.1