## 3 Results  
The values of the [PERSON]'s alpha internal consistency coefficient and the results of the equality test for the averages of analyzed items ([PERSON]'s T-squared test) are summarized in Table 1. It is noticed that the [PERSON]'s alpha values are for all four analyzed factors are higher than 0.6, considered to be the lower limit for which the fidelity of a questionnaire is accepted, so the opinions expressed are measured accurately, which confirms the first working hypothesis (H1). The results of [PERSON]'s T-squared test have values that confirm the second working hypothesis (H2): F1 (4.143) = 16.702, F2 (7.140) = 16.643, F3 (4.143) = 38.877 and F4 (4.143) = 94.761, all related to a significance threshold \(p<0.001\), so there is variety in the expression of responses to the items in the questionnaire and their averages are not equal. Table 2 summarizes the values of the multivariate test, highlighting the influence of the gender variables, area variables and the combination of them upon each factor of the questionnaire. As it can be noticed, the effect of independent variables upon the cumulation of items grouped by factors does not generate statistically significant threshold values or strong effects, and there is only one case where a significant value is present (the gender variable for the motivation factor generates a \(p=0.020\) and an average effect \(\eta^{2}_{\text{p}}=0.091\), so 9.1% of the variance is explained by the influence of this variable). Table 3 shows the ANOVA tests results between-subjects' effects considering the cumulative consequence of gender variables on F1 factor items/attractiveness. Table 4 shows the results of the questionnaire for the attractiveness factor using an univariate test. Table 5 shows the ANOVA tests outcomes between-subjects' effects considering the cumulative results of gender variables on F2 factor items/accessibility. Table 6 shows the outcomes of the questionnaire for the accessibility factor (univariate test). Table 7 shows the ANOVA tests consequences between-subjects' effects considering the cumulative outcome of gender variables on F3 factor items/motivation. Table 8 shows results of the questionnaire for the motivation factor (univariate test). Table 9 shows the ANOVA tests results between-subjects' effects considering the cumulative outcome of gender variables on F4 factor items/efficiency. At the level of the attractiveness factor items (Table 3) there are no values of F to be associated with significant thresholds, nor increased values of \(\eta^{2}_{\text{p}}\) to highlight strong effects, but only values indicating weak or zero effects. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Factors**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Reliability Statistics**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Hotelling’s T-Squared Test**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & _Cronbach’s Alpha_ & **Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items** & **N of Items** & **Hotelling’s T-Squared** & **F** & **df1** & **df2** & **Sig. ** \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**F1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.830} & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.828**} & \multirow{2}{*}{5} & 68.210 & 16.702 & 4 & 143 & 0.000 \\ Attractiveness & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**F2**} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.863} & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.868**} & \multirow{2}{*}{8} & 121.490 & 16.643 & 7 & 140 & 0.000 \\ Accessibility & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**F3**} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.774} & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.774**} & \multirow{2}{*}{5} & 158.813 & 38.887 & 4 & 143 & 0.000 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**F4**} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.811} & \multirow{2}{*}{**0.82