Quantitative Analysis of Footwear Study: Data Analysis Report, Results

This report presents a quantitative analysis of a footwear study, investigating the behavioral changes of users with varying audio interfaces in footwear. The study involved 22 participants, and the analysis addressed data issues such as missing values, which were handled by replacing them with attribute averages. Descriptive statistics were calculated for attributes like age, shoe size, and weight. Confidence intervals were computed for galvanic skin response and the proportion of positive valence across different sound frequencies (high, low, and control). Hypothesis testing was conducted to assess differences in heel pressure, toe pressure, and feet acceleration concerning sound frequency. The findings indicated no significant differences in heel pressure and feet acceleration, while toe pressure showed significant variations across sound frequency levels. The study concludes that the audio interface influences user behavior, specifically affecting toe pressure, and provides insights into the impact of sound frequency on user responses.

Running Head: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Quantitative Analysis
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Introduction
Footwear is generally assumed not to have any user interfaces, especially audio
interfaces. This research paper is thus based on the change in the behaviors of the users with the
change in the audio interface in footwear. The dataset for this research is collected from a
footwear study and contains information on 22 participants. The main aim of the study is to
evaluate the extent to which the changes occur in the behavior of the users with the change in the
audio interfaces in footwear.
Data Issues
Random selection of 22 participants were made to participate in the survey and the
responses provided by them have been represented in columns. There were a few missing data in
the rows indicating incomplete submission of the questionnaires of some participants. Incorrect
entries of data in rows and columns have also been observed.
Cleaning of Data
There were 6 participants of the survey who have submitted incomplete questionnaires
out of the 22 participants. Since the dataset is not large, removing the missing values from the
data will be affecting the results of the analysis. Thus, the missing values are replaced by the
average of the values of that attribute.
Descriptive Statistics
The results of the descriptive statistics will be able to shed light on the data attributes and
gain any idea about the data without actually running any analysis. The following table shows

2QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
the descriptive measures of five attributes such as age, shoe size, weight, height and body
visualization.
Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation Confidence Interval
Age 24.36364 22.5 20 4.855487367 19.03351048
Shoe Size 6.022727 5.75 5 1.828851271 7.16909698
Weight 59.25 57 52 10.54666501 41.34292684
Height 164.8182 165 165 6.905045523 27.06777845
Body Visualization 1.739288 1.71722 #N/A 0.094214063 0.369319128
Confidence Intervals
The 95 percent confidence interval to compare the galvanic skin response for three
different sound frequencies of control, low and high are calculated and the upper and the lower
confidence limit are given in the table that follows.
Sound Frequency Galvanic Skin Response
Lower Confidence Limit Upper Confidence Limit
High 0.0569 0.28697
Low -0.3507 0.5184
Control -0.29199 0.2695
High Low Control
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
95% Confidence Interval of Galvanic Skin Response towards
Different Sound Frequencies
Frequency of Sound
Galvanic Skin Response (Z-Score)

3QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
The bar chart given above shows the confidence intervals for the three different types of
sound frequencies. It can be seen from the graph that the Galvanic Skin Response is highest
when the sound frequency is high and is the least when the frequency of sound is under control.
Thus, it can be said that the galvanic skin response score for high frequency of sound is higher
than 0.173 with a confidence interval of 0.565.
Confidence Interval of Proportion of Positive Valence
The confidence interval for the proportion of Valence has been calculated and presented
in the table that follows. The bar graph shows the proportion of positive valence and the error
graphs show the confidence interval. It can be seen clearly from the graph that the proportion of
people having positive valence for high, low and control sound frequencies differ significantly
from each other.
Lower Confidence Interval Higher Confidence Interval
High 0.597609 0.947846
Low 0.291063 0.708937
Control 0.385455 0.796363
High Low Control
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
95% Confidence Interval of Proportion
Frequency of Sound
Proportion of Positive Valence

4QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Hypothesis Testing
Research Question 1: Is there any difference in heel pressure with respect to frequency of
sound?
High Low Control
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Difference between sound frequency and heel pressure
Frequency
Heel Pressure
From the bar chart presented above, it can be seen that there are no significant differences
in the heel pressures with respect to the frequency of the sound as there is no overlapping of the
confidence intervals.
Research Question 2: Is there any difference in toe pressure with respect to frequency of sound?

5QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
High Low Control
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Toe pressure and Sound Frequency
Sound Frequency
Toe Pressure
From the bar chart presented above, it can be seen that there are significant differences in
the toe pressures with respect to the frequency of the sound as there is overlapping of the
confidence intervals.
Research Question 3: Is there any difference in feet acceleration with respect to frequency of
sound?
High Low Control
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Feet Acceleration and Sound Frequency
Sound Frequency
Toe Pressure

6QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
From the bar chart presented above, it can be seen that there are no significant differences
in the feet acceleration with respect to the frequency of the sound as there is no overlapping of
the confidence intervals.
Conclusion
This paper has been based on the analysis of the quantitative variables which contains
information of the footwork of the participants exposed to high, low and control frequency of
sound. The study was conducted on 22 participants and the analysis has shown that there is no
difference in the heel pressure and the feet acceleration of people exposed to different sound
frequency levels. On the other hand, difference has been observed in the toe pressure given by
people exposed to different levels of sound frequency.