## 6 Practical Application and Results
### Prototyping and Evaluation
#### 6.4.2 Simulation Testing
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline  & **AR** & **MR** \\ \cline{2-3}
**Query** & \(\mathbf{p}\)**-Value** & \(\mathbf{p}\)**-Value** \\ \hline
1. Constraint’s current status & 1.000 & 0.714 \\
2. Name of the planned task on review & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
3. Number of constraints removed & 0.670 & 0.689 \\
4. Number of constraints not removed & 0.689 & 0.210 \\
5. Name of the constraint not removed & 0.546 & 0.280 \\
6. Estimated removal data & 0.406 & 0.720 \\
7. Type/nature of the constraint & 0.689 & 0.670 \\
8. Comments on the constraint removal & 0.689 & 0.594 \\
9. Name of the individual responsible & 0.720 & 0.406 \\
10. Reliability in the responsible of the constraint & 0.495 & 0.330 \\
11. Probability of removing constraint in time & 0.689 & 0.506 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: statistically significant difference when \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 7: [PERSON]’s exact test results—students versus practitioners. Figure 8: Details on the SAGAT experimental procedure. in SA requirements 4, 5, and 10. In these SA requirements, students scored higher than practitioners, suggesting that prior experience was not a determining factor in achieving higher SA in this study. Overall, the results are highly consistent across groups, with no statistically significant differences. Therefore, the data from all participants were combined to provide a comprehensive analysis of the prototypes' impact on enabling SA. These results are presented as percentages in Figure 9.  
Considering that the target SA score depends on the margin for error that one is willing to accept [44], this study arbitrarily set a minimum SA score of 70%, given that the test was conducted in a simulated scenario. In an actual situation, field managers would be familiar with the construction project, which may result in more internalized information requirements, potentially leading to higher SA when using the proposed interfaces. As shown in Figure 9, participants achieved high comprehension of the constraint's current status (level 2 SA) in both AR and MR interfaces, scoring 100% and 93%, respectively. This comprehension was supported by its level 1 SA requirements, assessed through queries 2, 3, and 4, as detailed in the same figure. Although participants could not perfectly recall the number of constraints removed and not removed, their overall perception enabled them to form an excellent mental schema of the constraints' situation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Query**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MR**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Student** & ** Practitioner** & **Student** & ** Practitioner** \\ \hline
1. Constraint’s current status & 100\% & 100\% & 100\% & 90\% \\
2. Name of the planned task on review & 100\% & 100\% & 100\% & 100\% \\
3. Number of constraints removed & 75\% & 80\% & 75\% & 70\% \\
4. Number of constraints not removed & 75\% & 70\% & 100\% & 60\% \\
5. Name of the constraint not removed & 75\% & 60\% & 75\% & 40\% \\
6. Estimated removal date & 75\% & 50\% & 50\% & 50\% \\
7. Type/nature of the constraint & 75\% & 70\% & 75\% & 80\% \\
8. Comments on the constraint removal & 75\% & 70\% & 50\% & 40\% \\
9. Name of the individual responsible & 50\% & 50\% & 75\% & 50\% \\
10. Reliability in the responsible of the constraint & 100\% & 80\% & 100\% & 70\% \\
11. Probability of removing constraint in time & 75\% & 70\% & 75\% & 90\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Percentage of correctness—students versus practitioners. Figure 9: Percentage of SA achieved in each SA requirement’s query per prototype. Continuing in Figure 9, for the probability of removing the constraints on time (level 3 SA), four of its level 1 SA requirements, assessed through queries 5, 6, 8, and 9, did not achieve acceptable SA scores individually. However, the SA requirements in conjunction enabled participants to understand and project the probability of removing the constraints in time, achieving scores of 71% in AR and 86% in MR.