Penguin Mouse Usability Study

______________________________________________________________________________________
The Penguin Vertical Mouse
A Usability Study Evaluating
Qualitative and Quantitative Functionality of Design
VSI Risk Management & Ergonomics Inc.
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328
Newark, California 94560
www.vsi-consulting.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
2|P age
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
3-4
Project Overview
Pages
5-10
Methods & Study Outline
Pages
11-14
Summary of Qualitative Results
Pages
15-17
Summary of Quantitative Results
Summary Tables of Statistical Values for Quantitative Results using Fitts
Law, Microsoft Office EXCEL and WORD
Pages
19-20
Fitts Law - accuracy and precision
Pages
21-22
Microsoft OFFICE – productivity and efficiency
Page s
23-24
Microsoft Office EXCEL – productivity, efficiency,
accuracy and precision
Analysis of Raw Data
Pages
25-33
Fitts Law – accuracy and precision
Pages
34- 42
Microsoft OFFICE – productivity and efficiency
Pages
43-51
Microsoft Office EXCEL – productivity, efficiency,
accuracy and precision
Page
52
Signatures of Professional VSI Consultants
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
3|P age
Project Overview
A Usability Study (further referred to as the Study) regarding the quantitative and qualitative
functionality of the Penguin Vertical mouse was conducted by VSI Risk Management &
Ergonomics Inc. (VSI), a Human Factors Ergonomic Engineering firm located in Northern
California. The study compared the Penguin vertical mouse to three other mouse designs; the
Evoluent mouse, the 3-M Renaissance mouse, and the standard mouse.
The purpose of the study was to test for usability outcomes as they relate to
Accuracy and Precision,
Efficiency and Productivity,
Goniometric Measurements to determine the most optimal wrist and finger postures due
to the mouse design,
Comfort
User preference due to design and usability
The Use Study was conducted at two separate company sites with 11 participants located at each
site. All participants were selected randomly and met the criteria of the study that included the
following:
Must be proficient with Microsoft (MS) Office programs such as Excel, Word, and Email
Must spend at a minimum of 6 hours per day on the computer
Must not have had any experience using any of the test mice prior to the study
Must be agreeable to using all three of the test mice for each of the six day test periods
Must be agreeable to stop using any of the test mice if discomfort develops and to notify
the use study evaluator immediately
Must not talk to other participants about personal experience with the test mice during the
study
The Study ran for over a period of five weeks (including Holidays, weekends, etc.) with each
participant using each one of the test mice for a period of six days.
To ensure that the parameters of the study were met, random, unscheduled visits were performed
by the use study evaluator on non test days with all participants. This was done to ensure that the
participants were actually using the test mice throughout the week to exclude the potential for
bias in the study. Cross talk with other participants was also strongly discouraged during the
study so as not to bias the qualitative results of participants due to other participant opinions.
Please Note: Data from 22 participants was used for the final analysis of this study from an
original participant number of 26. This was due to 4 of the users not meeting the study
parameters resulting with their data being excluded from the final analysis.
Please Note: Goniometric data was not used in comparison with the 3-M mouse due to many of
the users not being able to complete the 6 week trial period of use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
4|P age
I.
Overview of Quantitative Data Collected
Accuracy and Precision
The following quantitative data was obtained from both groups for accuracy and precision by
running both a timed Fitts Law test and a timed Microsoft (MS) Office Excel test.
Efficiency and Productivity
Efficiency and Productivity outcomes were completed by timed MS Office WORD tests.
Goniometric Measurements - Neutral Hand Posturing
Goniometric measurements of the dominant mousing hand were collected to determine if one of
the four mouse designs were better or worse as it related to “neutral” upper extremity posturing
with use. Goniometric measurements pertaining to specific hand postures observed while using
the peripherals (standard mouse, Evoluent, Penguin, 3-M,) were measured at the onset of using
each device and after using each device for five to six days.
Hand posture measurements were of particular interest to this study as neutral hand posturing
contributes to pain free mousing. It also relates to the performance of “correct mousing
technique”, discouraging awkward and static postures of the wrist and fingers and contact stress
against the median and ulnar nerves.
II.
Overview of Qualitative Data Collected
Comfort
Qualitative data collected from the study included subject interviews of which mouse they felt
was most comfortable to use throughout the work day and why.
User preference due to design and usability
Qualitative data collected from the study included subject interviews of which mouse they
preferred to use due to its design and overall usability.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
5|P age
Methods & Study Outline
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
6|P age
The study utilized a Single-Factor within Subjects design. Statistics were run using a one-tail
Students T-test that compared outcomes between the standard mouse, Evoluent mouse, Penguin
mouse and the 3-M Renaissance mouse.
Conclusion of ANOVA was utilized to determine statistical significance.
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables used in the study are:
Accuracy and Precision
Efficiency and Productivity
Goniometric Measurements to determine the most optimal wrist and finger postures due
to the mouse design
Comfort
User preference due to design and usability
Independent Variables
The independent variables used in the study are:
Standard mouse
Evoluent mouse
3-M Renaissance mouse
Penguin mouse
Tools used for the Study
Surveys and/or data collections forms were created and data was collected with regards to:
1. Discomfort (VAS Scale, location of discomfort, comments),
2. Product Usability (1-10 scale)
3. Posture measurements and posture observations (contact stress, wrist extension, and
deviation, finger flexion/extension)
a. Measurement Methods:
i. Goniometric measurements for wrist and hand angles
ii. Visual observations for finger postures
iii. Visual observations for idle static loading
iv. Visual observation and estimated time exposures for contact stress
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
7|P age
Summary of Use Study Procedures
Each of the 22 participants were asked to perform a series of three timed tests with their right,
dominant mousing hand; a WORD test, an EXCEL test, and then a Fitts Law test.
Participants were first asked to perform these three timed tests using their standard mouse and
data was collected for a baseline.
Participants were then asked to perform these three timed tests using the first of three test mice.
Two individual WORD and two individual EXCEL tests with the same number of character’s
were provided so that the participant would not gain familiarity with the verbiage and mousing
commands of the test.
Participants were then asked to use the test mouse for a period of six days.
After a period of six days, the timed test series was rerun on the test mouse and data was
collected.
After the data was collected from the first test mouse, the second test mouse was introduced.
The alternate series of timed tests were run and the data was collected.
Users were asked to use the second test mouse for a period of six days. At the end of the second
trial period of six days, the three timed tests were re-administered and the data was collected.
This procedure was repeated for all three of the test mice.
Goniometric measurements of ulnar deviation, wrist extension and palmar abduction were taken
with all participants with all four of the mice; standard mouse, Evoluent mouse, 3-M
Renaissance mouse and the Penguin mouse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
8|P age
Baseline/Beginning of Week 1:
Initial data collection with standard mouse use
Initial qualitative comments are collected from each subject as they pertain to the use of
the subjects’ standard mouse
Goniometric measurements of the various hand postures assumed while using the
standard mouse are collected from each subject by a Certified Hand Therapist
Initial discomfort rating are collected from each subject as they pertain to the use of the
subjects’ standard mouse
Initial productivity surveys are collected from each subject as they pertain to the use of
the subjects’ standard mouse use
Fitts Law test is run with use of the subjects’ standard mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
EXCEL test is run with use of the subjects’ standard mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
WORD test is run with use of the subjects’ standard mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
Baseline/Beginning of Week 1:
Initial Data Collection with the first test mouse
Initial qualitative comments are collected from each subject as they pertain to the look of
the first test mouse
Initial qualitative comments are collected from each subject as they pertain to the use of
the first test mouse
Initial observation of using the first test mouse are collected
Paper instruction (included with the packaging) on proper hand posture use for the first
test mouse is provided for subjects that did not understand the basic use of the mouse
Goniometric measurements of the various hand postures assumed while using the first
test mouse are collected from each subject
Fitts Law test is run with use of the subjects’ first test mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
EXCEL test is run with use of the subjects’ first test mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
WORD test is run with use of the subjects’ first test mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
End of Week 1:
Researchers perform a personal check in with regards to comfort and productivity
surveys
Researchers perform a personal check in for observations of how the subjects are using
the first test mouse
Researchers perform a personal check in with regards to reactions and/or comments as
they pertain to use of the first test mouse
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
9|P age
Beginning of Week 2:
Final data is collected with the first test mouse and initial data is collected with the second test
mouse
Final qualitative comments are collected from each subject as they pertain to the look and
use of the first test mouse
Second test mouse is introduced
Initial qualitative comments are collected from each subject as they pertain to the look of
the second test mouse
Initial qualitative comments are collected from each subject as they pertain to the use of
the second test mouse
Initial observation of using the second test mouse are collected
Paper instruction (included with the packaging) on proper hand posture use for the
second test mouse are provided
Goniometric measurements of the various hand postures assumed while using the second
test mouse are collected from each subject.
Fitts Law test is run with use of the subjects’ second test mouse to obtain the true
statistical mean for each subject
EXCEL test is run with use of the subjects’ second test mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
WORD test is run with use of the subjects’ second test mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
End of Week 2:
Researchers perform a personal check in with regards to comfort and productivity
surveys
Researchers perform a personal check in for observations of how the subjects are using
the second test mouse
Researchers perform a personal check in with regards to reactions and/or comments as
they pertain to use of the second test mouse,
Beginning of Week 3:
Final data is collected with the second test mouse and Initial Data is collected with the third test
mouse
Final qualitative comments are collected from each subject as they pertain to the look and
use of the second test mouse
Third test mouse is introduced
Initial qualitative comments are collected from each subject as they pertain to the look of
the third test mouse
Initial qualitative comments are collected from each subject as they pertain to the use of
the third test mouse
Initial observation of using the third test mouse are collected
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
10 | P a g e
Paper instruction (included with the packaging) on proper posture use for the third test
mouse are provided
Goniometric measurements of the various hand postures assumed while using the third
test mouse are collected from each subject
Fitts Law test is run with use of the subjects’ third test mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
EXCEL test is run with use of the subjects’ third test mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
WORD test is run with use of the subjects’ third test mouse to obtain the true statistical
mean for each subject
End of Week 3:
Researchers perform a personal check in with regards to comfort and productivity
surveys
Researchers perform a personal check in for observations of how the subjects are using
the third test mouse
Researchers perform a personal check in with regards to reactions and/or comments as
they pertain to use of the third test mouse
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
11 | P a g e
Summary of Qualitative Results
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
12 | P a g e
I.
Qualitative Results - Comfort
Out of 22 users, 20 related that the Penguin was the most comfortable to use compared to the
Evoluent, 3-M Renaissance and standard mouse options. This results with a 90% satisfaction
rate for perceived comfort with the Penguin mouse.
II.
Qualitative Results - User preference due to design and usability.
Discussion:
Penguin
Out of 22 users, 18 related that the Penguin had superior design and usability. They believed
this to be due to the Penguins innate design which many described as an “upright version of a
horizontal mouse display.” Left and right click buttons were readily accessible in conjunction
with the scroll wheel feature. DPI settings were also easily programmable compared to the
other two test mice. Users also enjoyed that it was a “plug and play” mouse and that no
software was not needed to program the buttons compared to the Evoluent mouse.
All users appreciated the lit up “P” feature display on the Penguin that notified them of the
charging status of the Penguin.
All users were impressed with the “sleep mode” of the Penguin when not in use to save battery
power.
All users enjoyed the cordless feature of the Penguin and that the dongle was easily stored
within the body of the mouse for storage and travel purposes.
All users related that they could work an entire day, sometimes for more than eight hours,
without ever experiencing discomfort with their dominant mousing hand when using the
Penguin.
Please Note: Prior discomfort had been reported at the dominant mousing hand with standard
mouse use by 12 of the 22 users. Discomfort at the dominant mousing hand decreased after one
weeks use with the Penguin mouse with two users. One user reported a Visual Analog Scale
for Pain Measurement (VAS) of 8/10 that decreased in one week to a VAS rating of 4/10. The
other user reported a VAS rating of 6/10 that decreased to a VAS rating of 3/10.
All 22 participants used the Penguin mouse for the duration of the six days.
Two of the users described experiencing discomfort in the bicep muscles at the onset of use but
that it dissipated after two days. This evaluator attributes this muscle soreness to the users
engaging large muscle regions that had not been used prior with the standard mouse.
Three users mentioned having “charging problems” with the Penguin
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
13 | P a g e
Four of the users described the Penguin base as taking up too much real estate on their
worksurface and preferred the 3-M Renaissance base. However, these same users preferred the
functionality design of the Penguin compared to the 3-M Renaissance mouse.
Evoluent Mouse
Most users continued to use incorrect hand posturing with the Evoluent mouse placing their
wrist into excessive extension and planting on the ulnar border even after training on correct
hand posture use was provided at the onset of the study.
20 out of the 22 users did not enjoy having to download software to program the Evoluent
mouse.
Two of the users initially thought it was “cool” that they could download software to program
the buttons on the Evoluent mouse however all users found the software download to be
inefficient as many of the buttons that initially looked like they were available for programming
weren’t.
Eight of the 22 users did not want to continue using the Evoluent mouse for the duration of one
week but did so after checking in with the use study evaluator after expressing their concerns.
Six users complained of discomfort at their mousing hand developing after only one days use
with the Evoluent mouse.
“It felt like a rock in my hand”
“ I felt like I was ironing my shirt”
3-M Renaissance Mouse
Many users could not figure out how to use the 3-M Renaissance scroll wheel function even
after several days of use. 18 of the users discontinued use of the 3-M Renaissance mouse after
two to three days due to what they described as poor design and inability to use the scroll button
function.
19 of the users disliked the toggle style of the left/right mouse click functions and could not get
used to using it.
14 of the 22 users found that the 3-M Renaissance base was more comfortable to use than the
Penguin base however still preferred the Penguin innate functionality of design over the 3-M
Renaissance mouse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
14 | P a g e
Overall Results for Preference
17 of the users chose to keep the Penguin mouse at the end of the study: 77.3%.
2 of the users chose to keep Evoluent mouse at the end of the study: 9.1%
2 of the users chose to keep the 3-M Renaissance mouse at the end of the study: 9.1%
1 of the users chose to stay with the standard mouse: 4.5%
Further Discussion:
The two users who chose to keep the 3-M Renaissance mouse were between the ages of 25 and
27 and were active video gamers expressing that the 3-M Renaissance mouse resembled the
joystick feel that they were accustomed to.
Two of the three users that chose the Evoluent mouse did so due to liking the programmable
button option.
One of the users chose to keep the Evoluent mouse due to having difficulty maintaining a charge
with the Penguin mouse during her test week and therefore felt that the Penguin mouse may not
be dependable.
The user who chose to stay with the standard mouse design was over 60 years of age and did not
like any of the vertical mice designs.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
15 | P a g e
Summary of Quantitative Results
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
16 | P a g e
The following data has been shown to warrant statistical significance as it relates to the usability
of the Penguin vertical mouse.
I
Quantitative Test Results: Fitts Law Tests – accuracy and precision
Results:
Statistical significance that the mouse is faster than the Evoluent, 3-M Renaissance, and
Penguin mice initially and finally.
Statistical significance that the Penguin is faster than the 3-M Renaissance initially and at
final testing.
No statistical significant difference with regards to accuracy and precision was
determined between the Penguin and Evoluent mouse.
II
Quantitative Test Results: EXCEL tests – accuracy and precision and efficiency and
productivity.
Statistical significance that the Penguin is more efficient and therefore more productive
than the standard mouse initially and at final testing.
Statistical significance that the Penguin demonstrates greater accuracy and precision
coupled with efficiency and productivity than the Evoluent and 3-M Renaissance mice at
final testing.
III.
Quantitative Results: WORD test – efficiency and productivity
Statistical significance that the Penguin is more efficient and therefore more productive
than the standard mouse initially and at final testing.
Statistical significance that the Penguin is more efficient and therefore more productive
than the Evoluent and 3-M Renaissance mice at final testing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
17 | P a g e
IV.
Quantitative Results: Goniometric Measurements - Neutral Hand Posturing
Wrist Extension:
Standard Mouse compared to Evoluent Mouse- No statistical significance (the same).
Standard Mouse compared to the Penguin Mouse – Yes- statistical significance that the
standard mouse demonstrates greater wrist extension with use than the Penguin mouse.
Evoluent Mouse compared to the Penguin Mouse - Yes- statistical significance that the
Evoluent mouse demonstrates greater wrist extension with use than the Penguin mouse.
Ulnar Deviation:
Standard Mouse compared to Evoluent Mouse – Yes - statistical significance that the
standard mouse demonstrates a greater degree of ulnar deviated wrist postures with use
than use with the Evoluent mouse.
Standard Mouse compared to the Penguin Mouse – Yes - statistical significance that the
standard mouse demonstrates a greater degree of ulnar deviated wrist postures with use
than use with the Penguin mouse.
Evoluent Mouse compared to the Penguin Mouse – No statistical significance that the
Evoluent mouse demonstrates greater ulnar deviated wrist postures than the Penguin
mouse with use.
Palmar Abduction: Please Note for the following summary - a greater degree of palmar
abduction is desirable. A smaller degree of palmar abduction reflects gripping and/or squeezing
of the mouse and therefore, is undesirable as that it could cause strain issues with the thumb.
Standard Mouse compared to Evoluent Mouse – Yes - statistical significance that the
standard mouse demonstrates a lesser degree of palmar abduction than the Evoluent
mouse with use.
Standard Mouse compared to Penguin Mouse – Yes - statistical significance that the
standard mouse demonstrates a lesser degree of palmar abduction than the Penguin
mouse with use.
Evoluent mouse compared to the Penguin Mouse – No statistical significance that the
Evoluent mouse demonstrates a greater or lesser degree of palmar abduction than the
Penguin mouse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
18 | P a g e
Summary Tables of Statistical Values for Quantitative Results using
Fitts Law, Microsoft Office EXCEL and Microsoft Office WORD
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
19 | P a g e
Fitts Law Quantitative Results
Fitts' law is a model of human movement primarily used in human–computer interaction and
ergonomics that predicts the time required to rapidly move to a target area. This application is
used both with point-and-click and drag-and-drop actions and is often used with usability studies
to model the act of pointing, either by physically touching an object with a hand or finger as with
a touch pad or screen or by pointing to an object on a computer monitor using a pointing device
such as a mouse. Since the advent of graphical user interfaces, Fitts' law has been applied to
tasks where the user must position a mouse cursor over an on-screen target, such as a button or
other widget.
Fitts Law in its original and strictest form;
Describes untrained movements, (not movements that are executed after months or years
of practice)
Applies only to movement in a single dimension and not to movement in two dimensions
(though it is successfully extended to two dimensions in the Accot-Zhai steering law);
This study utilized Fitt’s Law to collect data on accuracy and precision when using the standard
mouse, the Evoluent mouse, the 3-M Renaissance mouse and the Penguin mouse. This data was
then organized for statistical comparison using a single tail T-test paired two samples for Means
between independent variables to determine if one device was in fact more accurate or precise.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
20 | P a g e
Quantitative Results – Fitts Law Accuracy and Precision
Summary of Statistical Values
Statistical Values
Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Initial
t Stat Value
t Critical Value
Mean
Mouse
830.3809524
Statistically significant that the mouse is more accurate and
precise than the Evoluent upon initial use.
Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Final
Statistically significant that the mouse is more accurate and
precise than the Evoluent after six days of use.
Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Initial
Statistically significant that the mouse is more accurate
and precise than the Penguin upon initial use.
Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Final
Statistically significant that the mouse is more accurate
and precise than the Penguin after six days of use.
Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance Initial
Statistically significant that the mouse is more accurate
and precise than the 3-M Renaissance mouse upon initial
use.
Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance Final
Statistically significant that the mouse is more accurate
and precise than the 3-M Renaissance mouse after six
days of use.
Evoluent vs. Penguin Final
No statistical significance that the Evoluent is more
accurate and precise than the Penguin and vice versa
after six days of use.
3-M Renaissance vs. Penguin Final
Statistically significant that the Penguin is more
accurate and precise than the 3-M Renaissance mouse
after six days of use.
= -6.776513577 (absolute value)
= 1.724718243
Evoluent
994.952381
t Stat Value
= -3.7733974 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Mouse
Evoluent
830.380952 933.3333333
t Stat Value
t Critical Value
Mean
Mouse
830.3809524
= -4.890014548 (absolute value)
= 1.724718243
Penguin
992.952381
t Stat Value
= -2.818932371 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Mouse
Penguin
830.3809524 905.5714286
t Stat Value
= -4.49412327 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.770933396
Mean
Mouse
3-M
830.0714286 1019
t Stat Value
= -3.698782567 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.770933396
Mean
Mouse
3-M
830.0714286
948.3571429
t Stat Value
= 0.722504082 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Evoluent
Penguin
933.3333333
905.5714286
t Stat Value
= 2.079260481 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.770933396
Mean
3-M
Penguin
948.3571429
891.2857143
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
21 | P a g e
Using a Microsoft Office WORD Test for Quantitative Results
A test derived from a Microsoft Office WORD program was provided to each participant at the
initial onset of use with each of the tested peripherals to test for productivity, and efficiency of
design. After six days of use, the WORD test was re-administered to collect comparison data for
statistical analysis. There are two versions of the WORD test, each with the same number of
characters and mousing instructions. Each participant was encouraged to use the mouse as much
as possible when executing the written instructions of the test. Both versions of the test were
used every other week to reduce the potential for motor memory.
The WORD tests are depicted below:
Open a WORD document and type the following paragraph
I am an unbelievable person who is capable of all kinds of remarkable things! I try and stay
focused and think of myself as a good person who likes people, the outdoors and pets. I love
good food, music and good wine. Life is good for the most part and I am happy to be a part of it.
Instructions:
1. Bold the second sentence
2. Underline the fourth sentence
3. Below the paragraph, insert a table with three columns and four rows
4. Shade all the cells Yellow
WORD Test II
Open a WORD document and type the following paragraph
Eating Mexican food can be an enjoyable experience especially with margaritas and good
guacamole. Eating Indian food can also be fun if you like the taste of curry. However, it is most
likely going to be a vegetarian dish. All foods can be fun to eat with the right company.
Instructions:
1. Bold the first sentence
2. Italicize the third sentence
3. Below the paragraph
4. Insert a table with three columns and four rows
5. Shade all the cells green
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
22 | P a g e
Quantitative Results – WORD Test for Productivity
Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Initial
NO statistical difference that the mouse is more
productive than the Evoluent or vice versa.
Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Final
Statistically significant that the Evoluent is more
productive than the standard mouse after six days
of use.
Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Initial
Statistically significant that the Penguin is more
productive than the standard mouse with initial use.
Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Final
Statistically significant that the Penguin is more
productive than the standard mouse after six days
of use.
Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance Initial
NO statistical difference that the mouse is more
productive than the 3-M Renaissance or vice
versa.
Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance Final
Statistically significant that the 3-M Renaissance
is more productive than the standard mouse after
six days of use.
Evoluent vs. Penguin Final
Statistically significant that the Penguin is more
productive than the Evoluent after six days of use.
t Stat Value
= 0.876542208 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Mouse
Evoluent
2.236190476 2.14381
t Stat Value
= 2.418007294 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Mouse
Evoluent
2.236190476 1.865714
t Stat Value
= 3.888730164 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Mouse
Penguin
2.236190476 1.523333333
t Stat Value
= 4.438922096 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Mouse
Penguin
2.236190476 1.346666667
t Stat Value
= -0.008 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.770933
Mean
Mouse
3-M
2.118571
2.12142857
t Stat Value
= 2.098272149 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.770933396
Mean
Mouse
3-M
2.118571429
1.580714286
t Stat Value
= 2.835761231 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Evoluent
Penguin
1.865714286
1.346666667
t Stat Value
= 2.225639884 (absolute value)
3-M Renaissance vs. Penguin Final
Statistically significant that the Penguin is more t Critical Value = 1.770933396
Mean
productive than the 3-M Renaissance mouse after
six days of use.
3-M
1.580714286
Penguin
1.275
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
23 | P a g e
Using a Microsoft Office EXCEL Test for Quantitative Results
A test derived from a Microsoft Office EXCEL program was provided to each participant at the
initial onset of use with each of the tested peripherals to test for productivity, efficiency,
precision, and accuracy with design. After six days of use, the EXCEL test was re-administered
to collect comparison data for statistical analysis. There are two versions of the EXCEL test,
each with the same number of characters and mousing instructions. Each participant was
encouraged to use the mouse as much as possible when executing the written instructions of the
test. Both versions of the test were used every other week to reduce the potential for motor
memory.
The EXCEL tests used are shown below.
EXCEL TEST #1
Open a blank EXCEL document and create the table below
January
joyce
3
terri
9
loran
1
sherry
2
February
6
4
5
5
March
3
2
4
4
April
8
4
8
2
May
2
3
5
9
TOTALS
22
22
23
22
EXCEL TEST #2
Open a blank EXCEL document and create the table below
melissa
jeanne
amy
kristine
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday TOTALS
5
4
3
8
2
22
2
6
2
4
3
17
3
3
4
8
5
23
1
5
6
0
9
21
11
18
15
20
19
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
24 | P a g e
Quantitative Results – EXCEL
Combined Test for Accuracy & Precision & Productivity & Efficiency
Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Initial
NO statistical difference that the mouse is more
accurate/precise than the Evoluent or vice versa
with EXCEL.
Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Final
Statistically significant that the Evoluent is more
accurate/precise than the standard mouse after six
days of use with EXCEL.
Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Initial
Statistically significant that the Penguin is more
accurate/precise than the standard mouse with
initial use with EXCEL.
Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Final
Statistically significant that the Penguin is more
accurate/precise than the standard mouse after six
days of use with EXCEL.
Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance Initial
NO statistical difference that the mouse is more
accurate/precise than the 3-M Renaissance or vice
versa with EXCEL.
Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance Final
Statistically significant that the 3-M Renaissance
is more accurate/precise than the standard mouse
after six days of use with EXCEL.
Evoluent vs. Penguin Final
Statistically significant that the Penguin is more
accurate/precise than the Evoluent after six days of
use with EXCEL.
t Stat Value
= -0.209092604 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Mouse
Evoluent
2.302857143 2.355238095
t Stat Value
= 2.752841241 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Mouse
Evoluent
2.302857143 1.788571429
t Stat Value
= 4.568957 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718
Mean
Mouse
Penguin
2.302857
1.50047619
t Stat Value
= 5.974069406 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Mouse
Penguin
2.302857143 1.311904762
t Stat Value
= 0.729900982 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.770933396
Mean
Mouse
3-M
2.434285714 2.249285714
t Stat Value
= 4.083195 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.770933
Mean
Mouse
3-M
2.434286
1.666428571
t Stat Value
= 3.365924025 (absolute value)
t Critical Value = 1.724718243
Mean
Evoluent
Penguin
1.788571429
1.31190476
t Stat Value
= 3.013867731 (absolute value)
3-M Renaissance vs. Penguin Final
Statistically significant that the Penguin is more t Critical Value = 1.770933396
Mean
accurate/precise than the 3-M Renaissance mouse
after six days of use with EXCEL.
3-M
1.666428571
Penguin
1.215714286
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
25 | P a g e
Combined Raw Data
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
26 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using Fitts Law
TEST I
T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Initial Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Mouse:
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
Variable 2
830.3809524 994.952381
10890.44762 12410.54762
21
21
0.469453777
0
20
6.776513577
6.84361E-07
1.724718243
1.36872E-06
2.085963447
mouse statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a negative result for the Evoluent mouse indicating that the standard mouse is faster than
the Evoluent mouse upon initial use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
27 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using Fitts Law
TEST II T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Final Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Mouse (after six days of use)
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
830.380952
10890.4476
21
0.29798353
Variable 2
933.3333333
11375.23333
21
0
20
-3.7733974
0.0005972
1.72471824
0.00119439
2.08596345
mouse statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a negative result for the Evoluent mouse indicating that the standard mouse is faster than
the Evoluent mouse even after six days of use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
28 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using Fitts Law
Test III T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Initial Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Mouse:
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
Variable 2
830.3809524 992.952381
10890.44762 30117.74762
21
21
0.491355504
0
20
4.890014548
4.42704E-05
1.724718243
8.85409E-05
2.085963447
mouse statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a negative result for the Penguin mouse indicating that the standard mouse is faster than
the Penguin mouse upon initial use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
29 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using Fitts Law
Test IV T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Final Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Mouse:
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
Variable 2
830.3809524 905.5714286
10890.44762 19042.35714
21
21
0.520528729
0
20
2.818932371
0.005301647
1.724718243
0.010603294
2.085963447
mouse statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a negative result for the Penguin mouse indicating that the standard mouse is faster than
the Penguin mouse even after six days of use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
30 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using Fitts Law
Test V T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Initial Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance Mouse:
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
830.0714286
12200.84066
14
0.269216565
Variable 2
1019
21200.76923
14
0
13
-4.49412327
0.000301875
1.770933396
0.00060375
2.160368656
mouse statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a negative result for the 3-M Renaissance mouse indicating that the standard mouse is
faster than the 3-M Renaissance mouse upon initial use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
31 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using Fitts Law
Test VI T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Final Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance Mouse:
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
Variable 2
830.0714286 948.3571429
12200.84066 10353.78571
14
14
0.366427158
0
13
3.698782567
0.001338125
1.770933396
0.002676249
2.160368656
mouse statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a negative result for the 3-M Renaissance mouse indicating that the standard mouse is
faster than the 3-M Renaissance mouse even after six days of use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
32 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using Fitts Law
Test VII T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Final Evoluent Mouse and Penguin Mouse:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
933.3333333
11375.23333
21
0.019969127
Variable 2
905.5714286
19042.35714
21
0
20
0.722504082
0.239174351
1.724718243
0.478348702
2.085963447
no statistical difference
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is less than the “T Critical” for a
one-tail result. This data reflects that there is no statistical significance that one mouse is more
accurate or precise than the other.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
33 | P a g e
Test VIII T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Final Penguin Mouse and 3-M Renaissance Mouse:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
948.3571429
10353.78571
14
0.744334806
Variable 2
891.2857143
23331.14286
14
0
13
2.079260481
0.028975337
1.770933396
0.057950674
2.160368656
penguin statistically better than
3m
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a positive result for the Penguin mouse and a negative result for the 3-M Renaissance
mouse indicating that the Penguin mouse is more accurate and precise than the 3-M Renaissance
mouse after six days of use
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
34 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data
Using WORD for Productivity
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
35 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using WORD for Productivity
Test I T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Initial Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Mouse
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable
Variable 1
2
2.236190476 2.14381
0.682844762 0.361695
21
21
0.816223187
0
20
0.876542208
0.195571214
1.724718243
0.391142427
2.085963447
no statistical difference
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is less than the “T Critical” for a
one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are not truly different and the result could
have occurred by chance therefore having no statistical significance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is no statistical significance and that the
results could have occurred by chance.
This result shows that there is no statistical significance that the mouse is more productive than
the Evoluent mouse or vice versa when using WORD.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
36 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using WORD for Productivity
TEST II T-Test paired two samples for Means
Initial Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Mouse:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
2.236190476
0.682844762
21
0.395394865
Variable 2
1.523333333
0.471583333
21
0
20
3.888730164
0.000456241
1.724718243
0.000912482
2.085963447
penguin statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a positive result for the Penguin mouse indicating that the Penguin mouse is more
productive with use than using the standard mouse upon initial use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
37 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using WORD for Productivity
TEST III
T-Test paired two samples for Means
Initial Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance Mouse:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable
1
Variable 2
2.118571 2.12142857
0.395705 2.36355165
14
14
0.502181
0
13
-0.008
0.496871
1.770933
0.993742
2.160369
no statistical difference
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is less than the “T Critical” for a
one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are not truly different and the result could
have occurred by chance therefore having no statistical significance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is no statistical significance and that the
results could have occurred by chance.
This result shows that there is no statistical significance that the mouse is more productive than
the 3-M Renaissance mouse or vice versa when using WORD.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
38 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using WORD for Productivity
TEST IV
T-Test paired two samples for Means
Final Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Mouse:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable
Variable 1
2
2.236190476 1.865714
0.682844762 0.397496
21
21
0.563704342
0
20
2.418007294
0.012635585
1.724718243
0.025271171
2.085963447
Evoluent statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a positive result for the Evoluent mouse indicating that the Evoluent mouse is as or more
productive after six days of use than the standard mouse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
39 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using WORD for Productivity
TEST V
T-Test paired two samples for Means
Final Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Mouse:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
Variable 2
2.236190476 1.346666667
0.682844762 0.661983333
21
21
0.37297978
0
20
4.438922096
0.000126122
1.724718243
0.000252243
2.085963447
penguin statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a positive result for the Penguin mouse indicating that the Penguin mouse is as or more
productive after six days of use than the standard mouse.
**Please denote that the Penguin also achieved a positive result when compared to the standard
mouse upon initial use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
40 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using WORD for Productivity
TEST VI
T-Test paired two samples for Means
Final Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance Mouse:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
2.118571429
0.395705495
14
0.384418076
Variable 2
1.580714286
1.010314835
14
0
13
2.098272149
0.027993945
1.770933396
0.055987891
2.160368656
no statistical difference
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is less than the “T Critical” for a
one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are not truly different and the result could
have occurred by chance therefore having no statistical significance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is no statistical significance and that the
results could have occurred by chance.
This result shows that there is no statistical significance that the mouse is more productive than
the 3-M Renaissance mouse or vice versa when using WORD after six days of use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
41 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using WORD for Productivity
TEST VII
T-Test paired two samples for Means
Final Evoluent Mouse vs. Penguin Mouse:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
Variable 2
1.865714286 1.346666667
0.397495714 0.661983333
21
21
0.346932388
0
20
2.835761231
0.005107464
1.724718243
0.010214928
2.085963447
penguin statistically better than Evoluent
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a positive result for the Penguin mouse indicating that the Penguin mouse shows a higher
rate of productivity with the user after six days of use than the Evoluent mouse after six days of
use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
42 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using WORD for Productivity
TEST VIII T-Test paired two samples for Means
Final 3-M Renaissance Mouse vs. Penguin Mouse:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
Variable 2
1.580714286
1.275
1.010314835 0.74845769
14
14
0.85938881
0
13
2.225639884
0.022177913
1.770933396
0.044355826
2.160368656
penguin statistically better than 3m
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result. This data reflects that the numbers are truly different and did not occur by
chance.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is statistical significance and that the results
did not occur by chance.
This is a positive result for the Penguin mouse indicating that the Penguin mouse shows a higher
rate of productivity with the user after six days of use than the 3-M Renaissance mouse after six
days of use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
43 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data
Using EXCEL for
Accuracy & Precision, Productivity &
Efficiency
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
44 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using EXCEL for Accuracy/Precision and Productivity
TEST I T-Test Paired two
sample for Means
Initial Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent
Mouse:
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
2.302857143
1.633651429
21
0.840058279
Variable 2
2.355238095
3.95478619
21
0
20
0.209092604
0.418245464
1.724718243
0.836490928
2.085963447
no statistical difference
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is less than the “T Critical” for a
one-tail result.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is NO statistical difference that the mouse is
more accurate/precise than the Evoluent or vice versa with EXCEL with initial use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
45 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using EXCEL for Accuracy/Precision and Productivity
Test II T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Initial Use
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable
1
2.302857
1.633651
21
0.800239
Variable 2
1.50047619
0.604544762
21
0
20
4.568957
9.32E-05
1.724718
0.000186
2.085963
penguin statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result.
This result is statistically significant that the Penguin is more accurate/precise than the standard
mouse with initial use with EXCEL.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
46 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using EXCEL for Accuracy/Precision and Productivity
Test III T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Standard Mouse vs. 3-M Renaissance initial Use
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
2.434285714
1.717272527
14
0.76775177
Variable 2
2.249285714
2.093637912
14
0
13
0.729900982
0.23919885
1.770933396
0.4783977
2.160368656
no statistical difference
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is less than the “T Critical” for a
one-tail result.
Based on a p value of .05, this data reflects that there is NO statistical difference that the mouse is
more accurate/precise than the 3-M Renaissance or vice versa with EXCEL with initial use.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
47 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using EXCEL for Accuracy/Precision and Productivity
Test IV T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Standard Mouse vs. Evoluent Final
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
2.302857143
1.633651429
21
0.74275356
0
20
2.752841241
0.006134696
1.724718243
0.012269392
2.085963447
Variable 2
1.788571429
0.945992857
21
Evoluent statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result.
This result is statistically significant that the Evoluent is more accurate/precise than the standard
mouse with final use with EXCEL.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
48 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using EXCEL for Accuracy/Precision and Productivity
Test V T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Standard Mouse vs. Penguin Final
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
2.302857143
1.633651429
21
0.81463618
Variable 2
1.311904762
0.76211619
21
0
20
5.974069406
3.83411E-06
1.724718243
7.66822E-06
2.085963447
penguin statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result.
This result is statistically significant that the Penguin is more accurate/precise than the standard
mouse after six days of use with EXCEL.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
49 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using EXCEL for Accuracy/Precision and Productivity
Test VI T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Standard Mouse vs. 3-M
Renaissance Final Use
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable
1
2.434286
1.717273
14
0.845778
Variable 2
1.666428571
1.059332418
14
0
13
4.083195
0.000647
1.770933
0.001293
2.160369
3m statistically better
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result.
This result is statistically significant that the 3-M Renaissance mouse is more accurate/precise
than the standard mouse after six days of use with EXCEL.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
50 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using EXCEL for Accuracy/Precision and Productivity
Test VI T-Test Paired two sample for Means
Evoluent vs. Penguin Final Use
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
Variable 2
1.788571429 1.31190476
0.945992857 0.76211619
21
21
0.757842722
0
20
3.365924025
0.001536728
1.724718243
0.003073456
2.085963447
penguin statistically better than Evoluent
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result.
This result is statistically significant that the Penguin is more accurate/precise than the Evoluent
after six days of use with EXCEL.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
51 | P a g e
Analysis of the Data Using EXCEL for Accuracy/Precision and Productivity
Test VII T-Test Paired two sample for Means
3-M Renaissance vs. Penguin Final
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Variable 1
1.666428571
1.059332418
14
0.840223539
Variable 2
1.215714286
0.819318681
14
0
13
3.013867731
0.004984714
1.770933396
0.009969429
2.160368656
penguin statistically better than 3m
In the above statistical result, you will denote that the “T-Stat” is greater than the “T Critical” for
a one-tail result.
This result is statistically significant that the Penguin is more accurate/precise than the 3-M
Renaissance after six days of use with EXCEL.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918
52 | P a g e
Signatures of Professional Consultants
This Use Study was developed and written for Posturite Inc. by:
Jeanne VS Iverson CEO
Senior Principal Ergonomist
MS HFE, MS OT, CIE, CPE (pending)
jiverson@vsi-consulting.com
510-499-1918
This Use Study report was reviewed by:
Melissa Afterman CPE, MS
Senior Principal Ergonomist
Melissa@vsi-consulting.com
415-235-5336
VSI Risk Management and Ergonomics Inc.
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328
Newark, California 94560
Office - 510-499-1918
Submitted Final Draft on January 21, 2013
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
6167 Jarvis Avenue Suite 328, Newark, California 94560 www.vsi-consulting.com 510-429-1918 * 510-499-1918