## 5 Results  
### Results and Analysis of Spatial Skills in ULL  
To know the effect produced by the training in the experimental group, the gain acquired in each of the instruments that measure the components of the spatial skills is compared with the gain acquired by the control group. In this study, the independent variable was the groups, and the dependent variable was the gain of each of the components. Figure 11: Tour of architectural spaces. Figure 12: Artificially created architectural spaces in virtual reality environments used for the exercise of identifying sensations. Table 2 displays the statistical description of data that was compiled for each of the groups. First, it is verified that the data collected before training follows a normal distribution. In order to do the statistical analysis, it was necessary to establish the fact if the experimental groups and control groups were homogeneous in terms of their spatial skills. The Shapiro-Wilk test (used on samples of less than 50 people) were used to test the normality of each sample. This test was run on data pretest from MRT, DAT-5 SR, SOT and ROCFT from each group (experimental and control). Table 3 summarizes the results of the normality distribution analysis of the study samples. The results of the normality tests for both groups indicate that in all cases the data are distributed according to the normal. On the other hand, the mean values obtained in the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure test indicate that the participants in both groups (experimental and control) do not have any neurological/clinical problem that prevents them from training and improving the components of spatial ability. The values are aligned with normalized values [55; 56; 57; 58]. At this stage of analysis, the research team checked whether there is a significant difference in the level of spatial awareness between the two groups prior to receiving training. A Student's \(t\)-test on independent samples produced \(p\)-value \(>\) 0.05 for the components of spatial ability (see Table 4). This means that in the three components of spatial ability that have been measured there is no significant difference between experimental and control groups before training, in other words both groups have the same level of spatial ability before training. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Pre MRT** & **Pre DAT-5** & **Pre SOT** \\ \hline Control Group vs. & & & \\ Experimental Group & \(p=0.43\) & \(p=0.78\) & \(p=0.89\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: \(p\)-Values prior training in each of the components of Spatial Skills. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MRT**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DAT-5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SOT**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ROCFT**} \\  & **Mean Value (SD)** & **Mean Value (SD)** & **Mean Value (SD)** & **Mean Value (SD)** & **Mean Value (SD)** \\  & **PRE** & **POST** & **PRE** & **POST** & **PRE** & **POST** \\ \hline
**Experimental group** & 17.21 & 23.29 & 29.29 & 36.29 & 46.52 & 28.03 & 27.00 \\ _m_**= 14** & (8.30) & (11.02) & (10.67) & (9.10) & (26.97) & (19.40) & (5.85) \\ \hline
**Control group** & 20.06 & 22.25 & 28.25 & 32.06 & 43.49 & 26.42 & 23.00 \\ _m_**= 16** & (10.81) & (9.57) & (9.64) & (8.50) & (27.08) & (28.37) & (4.98) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Statistical description of data. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Group** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Shapiro-Wilk**} & \\ \cline{3-5}  & **F** & **gl** & **Sig.** \\ \hline MRT & Experimental & 0.901 & 14 & 0.115 \\  & Control & 0.968 & 16 & 0.825 \\ \hline DAT5-SR & Experimental & 0.949 & 14 & 0.548 \\  & Control & 0.932 & 16 & 0.263 \\ \hline SOT & Experimental & 0.945 & 14 & 0.479 \\  & Control & 0.885 & 16 & 0.052 \\ \hline ROCFT & Experimental & 0.884 & 14 & 0.055 \\  & Control & 0.950 & 16 & 0.528 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Normality test for samples from both groups (experimental group and control group).