# Development and Evaluation of Training Scenarios for the Use of Immersive Assistance Systems
## 4 Results
### Analysis of Data
The ANOVA F(2, 48) = 8.15; \(p\) < 0.001; \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDash}\)p = 0.254; and power = 0.96 shows statistically significant differences in workload due to QoT. The prerequisites of normal distribution and variance homogeneity are fulfilled here. Furthermore, corresponding ANOVAs across all subscales were calculated; see Table 5. The requirements for normal distribution of the data are met for all subscales, except for physical effort and performance. When testing for variance homogeneity, the requirements for all subscales, except for performance, were met. As before, [PERSON]'s ANOVA was used for the analysis due to violations of the requirements. Table 6 shows the details of the corresponding post hoc comparison. For the subscale MD, statistically significant differences were found between MT-OT and DT-OT. According to the subscale P, a significant difference was shown between the factor levels MT and OT. For subscale E, a significant difference was \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Subscales** & **QoT** & **Mean Diff** & **t** & \(\boldsymbol{p}\)**Tukey** & **Co’d** \\ \hline PE & minimal & optimised & \(-\)0.847 & \(-\)2.63 & 0.030 * & \(-\)0.903 \\ EE & minimal & optimised & \(-\)0.780 & \(-\)2.61 & 0.032 * & \(-\)0.898 \\ FC & minimal & optimised & \(-\)1.014 & \(-\)3.33 & 0.005 * & \(-\)1.143 \\ HM & minimal & optimised & \(-\)0.898 & \(-\)3.11 & 0.009 * & \(-\)1.068 \\ BI & minimal & optimised & \(-\)1.384 & \(-\)3.42 & 0.004 * & \(-\)1.174 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Subscales of the UTAUT2 post hoc comparison with the Tukey alpha correction. (significant changes are highlighted with a *). Figure 8: Bar chart (with standard errors) of the subscales of UTAUT2–QoT. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Subscales** & **df1, df2** & **F** & \(\boldsymbol{p}\)** & \(\boldsymbol{\mathrm{n^{2}p}}\)**p** & **Power** \\ \hline PE * & & 3.53 & 0.037 & 0.128 & 0.66 \\ EE * & & 3.41 & 0.041 & 0.124 & 0.65 \\ SI & & 0.445 & 0.643 & 0.018 & 0.12 \\ FC * & 2, 48 & 4.384 & 0.007 & 0.188 & 0.86 \\ HM * & & 4.96 & 0.011 & 0.171 & 0.81 \\ HT & & 1.31 & 0.280 identified between DT and OT. For subscales F and Total_Mean, statistically significant differences were demonstrated between MT-OT and DT-OT. Figure 9 demonstrates the corresponding bar chart. Physiological Parameters: The statistically significant influence of training quality on physiological responses was demonstrated via ANOVAs using the relative mean HR_Diff F(5, 45) = 12.2; \(p<0.001\); \(\eta^{2}\)p = 0.352; and power = 1.00 and the relative SCL_Diff F(2, 45) = 5.20; \(p=0.009\); \(\eta^{2}\)p = 0.188; and power = 0.83. The conditions for variance homogeneity were met by both the HR and SCL, while the condition for normal distribution was met only by the SCL. However, the violation of the normal distribution can be compensated for by the sample size of n = 48. The post hoc comparison with the Tukey correction shows statistically significant differences for HR_Diff between MT-OT t(45) = 2.88; MD = 4.91 BPM; \(p=0.045\); and d = \(-1.036\) and DT-OT t(45) = 4. 920; MD = 8.11 BPM; \(p=0.017\); and d = \(1.712\). For SCL_Diff, a statistically significant difference between DT and OT t(45) = 3.130; MD = 1.309 \(\mu\)S; \(p=0.008\); and d = \(-1.090\) could be demonstrated. Figure 10 shows the corresponding boxplots with the means, median, and IQR.