## 4 Results  
This section presents the results from the wayfinding experiment to answer the three research questions presented in the introduction section. The first two questions are addressed with quantitative data analysis using statistical tests. We reported the differences in the wayfinding performance and workload between the control and experiment groups. Secondly, we looked at the effect of spatial ability skills on the workload and wayfinding performance of participants regardless of their group in indoor-outdoor navigation tasks. We will explore four hypotheses (H1-H4 presented in Section 3) in this study. The first two are linked to research question one, and the next two are related to research question two. The third question is addressed with qualitative data analysis and identifies the challenges and issues faced by participants when performing the indoor-outdoor university campus wayfinding task using mobile navigation apps. RQI: Indoor-Outdoor vs. Outdoor Only Mobile Navigation Aid in Campus Wayfinding (Performance and Perceived Workload)  
This research question investigated how the participants' wayfinding performance and perceived workload in campus navigation tasks using the provided navigation aid (outdoor navigation app vs. indoor-outdoor navigation app) differs between the control (using Google Maps) and the experiment group (using MazeMap). This research question focused on hypotheses H1 and H2. The null hypothesis for H1 was that there was no difference between the wayfinding performance of participants in the control (outdoor navigation app: Google Maps) and experiment (indoor-outdoor navigation app: MazeMap) groups. The wayfinding performance is measured in terms of total task duration, total help, total wrong directions, total hesitation, and total task completion. An independent \(t\)-test was conducted to compare the wayfinding performance between the control and experiment groups. The independent variable was the groups with different navigation aid: outdoor navigation app vs. indoor-outdoor navigation app, and the dependent variables were wayfinding performance parameters: total task duration, total help, total hesitation, total wrong directions, and total task completion. The \(t\)-test is appropriate for our experiment as it is used to study if there is a statistical difference between two independent groups. The results from the \(t\)-test are shown in Table 1.  
According to the results, no significant difference was found in wayfinding performance between the control and experiment groups. There were no significant differences in total task duration (t (20) = 0.828, \(p\) = 0.418); total help (t (20) = 1.411, \(p\) = 0.174); total wrong directions (t (20) = \(-\)0.146, \(p\) = 0.886); total hesitation (t (20) = 1.101, \(p\) = 0.284); and total task completion (t (20) = \(-\)0.323, \(p\) = 0.750) between the two groups (\(p\geq 0.05\)), failing to reject the null hypothesis. Despite this, the mean task duration (M = 24.82, SD = 7.561) for the control group (CG) was higher than the experiment group (EG) (M = 22.00, SD = 8.390). Similarly, the mean help (M = 1.18, SD = 1.168) and hesitation (M = 2.27, SD = 1.555) for the control group (CG) was higher than the mean help (M = 0.55, SD = 0.934) and hesitation (M = 1.64, SD = 1.120) for the experiment group (EG). However, the magnitude of the  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Leverne’s Test**} & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & &difference in the means for total task duration (mean difference = 2.818, 95% CI: [\(-\)4.285, 9.922]), total help (mean difference = 0.636, 95% CI: [\(-\)0.304, 1.577]), and total hesitation (mean difference = 0.636, 95% CI: [\(-\)0.569, 1.842]) was not significant. Hence, H1 was not supported. The null hypothesis for H2 was that there was no difference between the perceived workload of participants in the control (Google Maps) and experiment (MazeMap) groups.