# FRAMUX-EV: A Framework for Evaluating User Experience in Agile Software Development
## 6 Validating the Framework
### Quantitative Results
#### 6.1.1 Quantitative Results: UX Evaluation Methods  
Table 6 summarizes the survey results for dimensions D1 and D2 of the UX evaluation methods proposed in the first version of the FRAMUX-EV. A brief analysis of the descriptive statistics is provided below. **(D1) Usefulness. ** The UX evaluation method that obtained the best rating from the practitioners was the \"usability/user test\" with a score of 4.79 out of 5.00. Another UX evaluation method considered useful by the participants was \"evaluation with mockups or prototypes\", with 4.26 out of 5.00. On the other hand, the UX evaluation methods with the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**D1—Usefulness**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**D2—Ease of Integration**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**UX Evaluation Methods** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline Usability/user test & 4.79 & 0.41 & 3.65 & 0.98 \\ Heuristic evaluation & 3.82 & 0.83 & 3.53 & 0.99 \\ Evaluation with mockups or prototypes & 4.26 & 0.96 & 4.12 & 0.73 \\ Guerrilla testing & 3.97 & 1.03 & 3.35 & 0.92 \\ RITE method & 3.50 & 0.79 & 2.85 & 0.99 \\ A/B testing & 3.97 & 1.09 & 3.38 & 1.10 \\ Pluralistic walkthrough & 3.35 & 1.04 & 2.91 & 1.00 \\ System usability scale & 3.35 & 0.88 & 3.38 & 0.65 \\
**Mean** & **3.88** & & **3.40** & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Survey results for dimensions D1 and D2 of UX evaluation methods. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**ID** & **Educational Level** & **Years of Experience** & **Roles Undertaken** \\ \hline P18 & College education & 5 & UX Researcher \\ \hline P19 & College education & 16 & Lead UX, UX Designer \\ \hline P20 & College education & 2 & Project Manager, Product Owner, Scrum Master, QA Producer \\ \hline P21 & College education & 2 & UX Researcher, UX/UI Designer \\ \hline P22 & Master & 14 & Agile Delivery Lead, Developer, Scrum Master, Agile Team Facilitator \\ \hline P23 & College education & 1 & Product Owner \\ \hline P24 & Post Doctorate & 22 & Product Owner, Academic Professor \\ \hline P25 & Master & 10 & UX Researcher \\ \hline P26 & College education & 1 & UX Designer, IT Auditor \\ \hline P27 & College education & 1 & Front-End Developer \\ \hline P28 & College education & 15 & Senior Software Engineer, Lead Front-End Engineer, Full-Stack \\  & & Developer, UX Designer, Product Manager \\ \hline P29 & College education & 1 & Android Front-End Developer \\ \hline P30 & Master & 4 & IOS Developer \\ \hline P31 & College education & 8 & Product Owner \\ \hline P32 & Master & 5 & UX Researcher \\ \hline P33 & College education & 8 & Senior Product Designer, UX/UI Designer, Product Designer \\ \hline P34 & College education & 16 & Developer, Product Owner, UI Designer \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._worst usefulness perceived by the participants were \"pluralistic walkthrough\" and \"system usability scale\" with a score of 3.35 out of 5.00. However, although these methods were the worst evaluated, none were rated as \"not very useful\" (score 2) or \"very unhelpful\" (score 1). **(D2) Ease of integration. ** The UX evaluation method considered the easiest to integrate by the practitioners was \"evaluation with mockups or prototypes\", with a score of 4.12 out of 5.00, followed by \"usability/user test\", with a score of 3.65 out of 5.00. On the other hand, the UX evaluation methods with the worst ease-of-integration ratings assigned by the participants were \"pluralistic walkthrough\", with a score of 2.91 out of 5.00, and \"RITE method\", with a score of 2.85 out of 5.00. Surprisingly, only one UX evaluation method obtained an average score higher than 4.0 for ease of integration. Initially, no UX evaluation method should be discarded from this initial version of FRAMUX-EV, as all received a usefulness rating of above 3. However, it is necessary to provide more detailed guidance on how and when the proposed methods should be used, with a particular emphasis on those considered more challenging to integrate into agile environments.