## 4 Results
### RQ2: Effect of Spatial Ability Skills on Campus Wayfinding (Performance and Perceived Workload)
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline  & & **NASA TLX Score** & **SWR Score** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Overall Spatial Ability Skill} & Pearson Correlation & \(-0.559\)\({}^{*}\) & \(-0.466\)\({}^{*}\) \\  & \(p\)-Value & \(0.007\) & \(0.029\) \\  & N & \(22\) & \(22\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Spatial reasoning} & Pearson Correlation & \(-0.404\) & \(-0.287\) \\  & \(p\)-value & \(0.062\) & \(0.195\) \\  & N & \(22\) & \(22\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Spatial orientation} & Pearson Correlation & \(-0.500\)\({}^{*}\) & \(-0.348\) \\  & \(p\)-value & \(0.018\) & \(0.113\) \\  & N & \(22\) & \(22\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SBSOD} & Pearson Correlation & \(-0.104\) & \(-0.351\) \\  & \(p\)-value & \(0.644\) & \(0.109\) \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{N} & \(22\) & \(22\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. \({}^{*}\)Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: [PERSON]’s correlation between spatial ability skills and perceived workload. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & & **Total Task Duration** & **Total Help** & **Total Wrong Directions** & **Total Hesitation** & **Total Task Completion** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Overall Spatial ability skill} & Pearson Correlation & \(-0.342\) & \(-0.079\) & \(-0.195\) & \(-0.266\) & \(0.365\) \\  & \(p\)-value & \(0.119\) & \(0.726\) & \(0.385\) & \(0.231\) & \(0.095\) \\  & N & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Spatial reasoning} & Pearson Correlation & \(-0.040\) & \(-0.133\) & \(-0.062\) & \(-0.035\) & \(0.112\) \\  & \(p\)-value & \(0.860\) & \(0.556\) & \(0.786\) & \(0.877\) & \(0.619\) \\  & N & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Spatial orientation} & Pearson Correlation & \(-0.330\) & \(-0.161\) & \(-0.157\) & \(-0.151\) & \(0.308\) \\  & \(p\)-value & \(0.134\) & \(0.474\) & \(0.485\) & \(0.501\) & \(0.164\) \\  & N & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SBSOD} & Pearson Correlation & \(-0.239\) & \(0.346\) & \(-0.183\) & \(-0.498\)\({}^{*}\) & \(0.306\) \\  & \(p\)-value & \(0.285\) & \(0.115\) & \(0.415\) & \(0.018\) & \(0.166\) \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{N} & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) & \(22\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: [PERSON]’s correlation between spatial ability skills and wayfinding performance. three parameters of spatial ability skill, only spatial orientation has a significant relationship with the NASA TLX score. There was no significant relationship between any of the other two spatial ability skill parameters (Spatial reasoning and _SBSOD_) and perceived workload (NASA TLX score and SWR score). [PERSON]'s correlation of overall spatial ability skill and NASA TLX score was found to be a strong correlation and statistically significant (\(r=-0.559\), \(p<0.01\)), rejecting the null hypothesis. Similarly, the correlation between the spatial orientation and NASA TLX score was also found to be a strong correlation and statistically significant (\(r=-0.500\), \(p<0.05\)). At the same time, a medium correlation (\(r=-0.466\), \(p<0.05\)) was found between the overall spatial ability skill and SWR score. Hence, H3 was supported. This show that participants with higher spatial ability skills would experience less workload in the indoor-outdoor campus wayfinding task. The fourth hypothesis focuses on the relationship between spatial ability skills and wayfinding performance in campus wayfinding. The null hypothesis for H4 was that the spatial ability skills of participants will not impact their wayfinding performance in the university campus wayfinding task. [PERSON]'s test (see Table 5) revealed a significant negative relationship only between one of the three parameters of spatial ability skills, i.e., navigation (SBSOD score) and total hesitation.