Art´ıculo 3: Interaction association analysis of imputed SNPs

Table 6-11: Preference Summary

Group N Q1: I would recommend this system to my colleagues Q4: I enjoyed my session with this system Q6: Working with this software is satisfying Q9: The software has an attractive presentation

Q12: I would use this system again Total mean score Mean score VARK 38 3.63 3.55 3.74 3.37 3.47 3.55 H&M 38 3.71 3.55 3.61 3.63 3.27 3.55

VARK and H&M 36 4.19 4.06 4.00 3.81 3.86 3.98

No tailoring 37 3.49 3.08 3.54 2.81 3.05 3.19

Table 6-11 shows that none of the scores considered for preference learning tools are below average with the exception of the No tailoring group for Q9 relating to attractive presentation of the software (2.81). Recommendation of the system to colleagues (Q1) and software satisfaction (Q6) received the highest overall mean scores among the participants, 3.75 and 3.72 out of 5.0 respectively. Looking closely at the individual group scores, the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group give the highest scores in all the attributes considered. Overall, the results indicate that the preference attributes are well accepted across the groups (overall mean of 3.57) but mostly within the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group (3.98).

Q1: I would recommend this system to my colleagues.

For Q1, it is interesting to note that a large number of the participants among the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group agreed to introduce the system to their colleague and that those in the No tailoring group had the lowest score for this question. From the results of the ANOVA we can conclude that all of the groups agree that they would recommend this system to their colleagues; the difference in means is not statistically significant, F(3,145)=2.392, p=0.07.

Q4: I enjoyed my session with this system.

The above table shows that the response for Q4 is the highest for the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group and the response for the No tailoring group is the lowest among the groups. Overall, however, the above table suggests that all of the groups agree that they enjoyed their session with the system. Results from the ANOVA for Q4 revealed that there is a significant difference between the groups, F(3,145)=3.651, p<0.05. Separate t- tests were carried out to examine between which groups the differences lie. Results found that there was a statistical difference between the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group and the No tailoring group t(71)=3.36, p<0.01. None of the other t-tests comparing groups were significant. This indicates that the participants in the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group enjoyed their session with this system significantly more than those in the No tailoring group.

Q6: Working with this software is satisfying.

Results for Q6 show that, once more, the response for the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group is the highest and response for the No tailoring group is the least among the groups. From

the above table we can conclude that all the groups agree that they were satisfied on working with this software. The results from the ANOVA found that the difference is not statistically significant between the groups, F (3,145)=1.141, p=0.335.

Q9: The software has an attractive presentation

Again, results for Q9 show that the response for the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group is the highest and response of the No tailoring group is the least among the groups. The above table suggests that, with the exception of the No tailoring group, all of the groups agree that the software has an attractive presentation. Results from the ANOVA revealed that the difference between the groups is statistically significant, F(3,145)=4.215, p<0.01. Separate t-tests were carried out to examine between which groups the differences lie. Results found that there was a statistical difference between the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group and the No tailoring group t(71)=3.42, p<0.01; and between the H&M group and the No tailoring group t(73)=2.97, p<0.01. This indicates that the participants in the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group and the H&M group agree that the software has an attractive presentation significantly more than those in the No tailoring group.

Q12: I would use this system again.

The response for the VARK and H&M group for Q12 is the highest and the response for the No tailoring group is the least among the groups. Table 11 above suggests that all of the groups agree that they would use the system again. Results from the ANOVA reveal that the difference between the groups is statistically significant, F(3,145)=3.381, p<0.01. Separate t-tests were carried out to examine between which groups the differences lie. Results found that there was a statistical difference between the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group and the No tailoring group t(71)=3.02, p<0.01; and between the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group and the H&M group, t(71)=2.15, p<0.05. This indicates that the participants in the ‗VARK and H&M‘ group would use this system again significantly more than those in both the H&M and No tailoring group.