## 6 Practical Application and Results
### Prototyping and Evaluation
#### 6.4.2 Simulation Testing
They were developed to be consistent with how users process information [15] and to be straightforward to obtain categorical answers, avoiding additional transformations or decisions [41]. Given the dichotomous nature of the assessed items (correct or incorrect), the Kuder-Richardson formula 20 [56], yielding a score of 0.73, deemed acceptable for the purpose of the test, based on values considered in similar studies [57; 58]. The SAGAT queries developed for goal 1.1.1 are available in Table S2 of the Supplementary Material. Data collectionThe procedure for data collection is depicted in Figure 8. It was conducted as follows. 1. _Preparation_. Participants were briefed on the research and the purpose of the experiment. They then received detailed instructions on how to perform the trial and answer the queries. To familiarize themselves with the task and devices, participants conducted training trials using demo information with both AR and MR prototypes. Practice continued until they felt ready to proceed to the actual trial. 2. _Execution_. Participants were asked to perform a task as a field manager would normally do. The task intent was to verify the constraint removal on the weekly work plan (goal 1.1.1). For this, each participant was provided with five scheduled activities, some with constraints not removed. The AR/MR prototype provided information on  
Figure 7: Details on the trial conducted per participant. which activities had constraints not removed and assisted the participant in deciding whether constraints could be removed on time or if rescheduling was necessary. 3. _Freeze_. During the task, a random pause was introduced (between 3 and 5 min after starting) where participants were required to leave the prototype and answer the SAGAT queries. The unexpected freeze prevented participants from preparing their answers in advance. The purpose of the pause was to take a mental picture of the information gathered by the participant through the prototype, which formed the current perception of the situation at that moment. Later, this perception could be compared to the actual status of each variable (i.e., the correct answer to each query) to measure the participant's SA objectively. 4. _Resume_. After answering the queries, the trial was resumed, leaving the participant to continue reviewing the information to decide about the activities with constraints not removed. 5. _End_. The experiment concluded once the participant completed the assigned task. _Data analysis_. A tabulation of the frequency of correctness was conducted for each SA requirement in both AR and MR conditions to evaluate the effectiveness of the interfaces for enabling SA. The analysis began by examining whether statistically significant differences existed between the results of students and practitioners in both AR and MR environments. For this purpose, the [PERSON]'s exact test, a nonparametric test for analyzing categorical outcomes with a small sample size [59], was applied. Table 7 presents the results of the analysis. As shown in Table 7, no statistically significant differences were found between students and practitioners in either AR or MR environments. However, when comparing the percentage of correct answers (Table 8), the MR environment prese