Table 8: Open in new tab Results of...

Table 8:

Results of pairwise comparisons in five aspects using paired t-tests for three methods.

Different aspects	(I) Method	(J) Method	Paired differences (I–J)	t-value	Sig. (two-tailed)
Sketch	Method 1	Method 2	0.027*	-13.660	< 0.001
	Method 1	Proposed	0.028*	15.401	< 0.001
	Method 2	Proposed	0.025*	31.834	< 0.001
Image description	Method 1	Method 2	0.017*	-3.863	< 0.001
	Method 1	Proposed	0.028*	-16.118	< 0.001
	Method 2	Proposed	0.027*	-14.131	< 0.001
Client needs	Method 1	Method 2	0.022*	4.471	< 0.001
	Method 1	Proposed	0.028*	-13.942	< 0.001
	Method 2	Proposed	0.028*	-17.079	< 0.001
AL	Method 1	Method 2	0.025*	10.443	< 0.001
	Method 1	Proposed	0.028*	-17.411	< 0.001
	Method 2	Proposed	0.026*	-28.453	< 0.001
Design quality	Method 1	Method 2	0.060	-0.159	0.873
	Method 1	Proposed	0.065	0.686	0.493
	Method 2	Proposed	0.067	0.804	0.422

Different aspects	(I) Method	(J) Method	Paired differences (I–J)	t-value	Sig. (two-tailed)
Sketch	Method 1	Method 2	0.027*	-13.660	< 0.001
	Method 1	Proposed	0.028*	15.401	< 0.001
	Method 2	Proposed	0.025*	31.834	< 0.001
Image description	Method 1	Method 2	0.017*	-3.863	< 0.001
	Method 1	Proposed	0.028*	-16.118	< 0.001
	Method 2	Proposed	0.027*	-14.131	< 0.001
Client needs	Method 1	Method 2	0.022*	4.471	< 0.001
	Method 1	Proposed	0.028*	-13.942	< 0.001
	Method 2	Proposed	0.028*	-17.079	< 0.001
AL	Method 1	Method 2	0.025*	10.443	< 0.001
	Method 1	Proposed	0.028*	-17.411	< 0.001
	Method 2	Proposed	0.026*	-28.453	< 0.001
Design quality	Method 1	Method 2	0.060	-0.159	0.873
	Method 1	Proposed	0.065	0.686	0.493
	Method 2	Proposed	0.067	0.804	0.422

*Applying Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk of Type I errors. Since each metric was compared three times, the significance level is 0.05/3 = 0.0167. The name of the significantly better method in a two-by-two comparison is bolded.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only