## 4 Results
### Seven-Point Likert Scale
#### 4.2.3 Qualitative Feedback  
An inductive thematic analysis on transcribed data revealed three main themes: _Aesthetic Design_, _Functionality_, as well as _Comfort and Fit_. These three themes include both positive and negative perspectives and reflect the participants' feedback on the two GPTs and four Keywords. **Aesthetic Design:** The designs with _No Keyword_ were generally described as \"standard\" (P141), \"simple\" (P56), and \"not visually appealing\" (P61) when generated by _ChatGPT_. In contrast, designs generated by _OrthoticFootGPT_ were characterized as \"modern\" (P83, P90), \"aesthetic\" (P9), and \"compact\" (P60), with a \"positive shape and design\" (P74) resembling a \"mixture of a boot and a sports shoe\" (P102). For the keyword _Usability_, _ChatGPT_ designs were recognized as \"similar to shoes\" (P33) with a \"good color\" (P14) but were also criticized for being \"old-fashioned\" (P21) and \"unaesthetic\" (P61). Meanwhile, _OrthoticFootGPT_ designs were praised as \"aesthetic\" (P56), \"modern and sporty\" (P21), \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Device Acceptance**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Design Expectation**} \\
**Pairwise Comparisons** & **n1** & **n2** & _Stat._ & \(p\) & _padj._ & _Sig._ & _Stat._ & \(p\) & _padj._ & _Sig._ \\ \hline No Keyword—Usability & 108 & 108 & 1382 & 0.548 & 1 & ns & 1545 & 0.282 & 1 & ns \\ No Keyword—Social Acceptability & 108 & 108 & 1382 & 0.199 & 1 & ns & 1833 & 0.304 & 1 & ns \\ No Keyword—Sportty Design & 108 & 108 & 1110 & 0.066 & 0.398 & ns & 1093 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.002 & ** \\ Usability—Social Acceptability & 108 & 108 & 1529 & 0.325 & 1 & ns & 2022 & 0.030 & 0.179 & ns \\ Usability—Sportty Design & 108 & 108 & 732 & 0.011 & 0.064 & ns & 934 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.006 & ** \\ Social Acceptability—Sportty Design & 108 & 108 & 1030 & 0.007 & 0.042 & * & 836 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & *** \\ \hline No Keyword: ChatGPT—Orth.FootGPT & 54 & 54 & 1022 & 0.007 & 0.007 & ** & 819 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & *** \\ Usability: ChatGPT—OrthoticFootGPT & 54 & 54 & 692 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & *** & 712 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & *** \\ Social Accept: ChatGPT—Orth.GPT & 54 & 54 & 744 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & *** & 540 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & *** \\ Sportty Design: ChatGPT—Orth.FootGPT & 54 & 54 & 1212 & 0.129 & 0.129 & ns & 997 & 0.004 & 0.004 & ** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Post hoc pairwise comparisons within keywords and GPTs for Likert scores of device acceptance and design expectation. Significance codes: * (\(p<0.05\)), ** (\(p<0.01\)), *** (\(p<0.001\)), *** (\(p<0.0001\)), *** (\(p<0.0001\)), *** (\(p<0.0001\)), ns = not significant. Figure 9: This figure contains two boxplot diagrams, including the rated device acceptance (**a**) and aesthetic design expectation (**b**) for the four Keywords in each GPT. The x-axis lists the four Keywords: _No Keyword, Usability, Social Acceptability_, and _Sportty Design_. The y-axis represents the corresponding scores from the Likert rating. The boxplots are color-coded to distinguish the GPT: _ChatGPT_ in red and _OrthoticFootGPT_ in blue. Asterisks indicate significance levels: * (\(p<0.05\)), ** (\(p<0.01\)), *** (\(p<0.001\)), *** (\(p<0.0001\)). and also \"similar to shoes\" (P41, P69). Furthermore, one participant stated that \"the eye-catching design ensures that the orthosis is easily recognized by others, which can lead to more consideration from others\" (P108). Images generated using the keyword _Social Acceptability_ via _ChatGPT_ were described as \"minimalistic\" (P24) with a \"positive color\" (P14), but their perception was negatively impacted by a \"dubious shape\" (P21) and \"incomprehensible design\" (P47).