EgressII results

A baseline reading score was computed for each participant: the number of words read correctly out of the total of 14 words. No distinction was made for the length, complexity or prior familiarity of the words. Reading scores ranged from 0 words to 12 words, with a mean of 3.2 words read correctly. Five participants read no words. Scores on this baseline reading test of words which participants would be asked to read on signs in Powell Station indicated that participants indeed could not read or had difficulty reading.

On the pointing and reading task at six locations with and without the use of Talking Signs messages, each participant could receive a maximum of six points, one point for each task. For tasks involving reading and understanding multiple words, partial credit was given.

For the No Talking Signs condition, the mean score was 1.3 (21.7%), and the range was 0.3 to 3.0. For the Talking Signs condition, the mean score was 5.0 (83.3%), and the range was 3.4 to 6.0. Three participants received the maximum score of 6.0. In analysis of paired differences using a one-tailed T-test, Talking Signs resulted in significantly higher mean reading scores than the no Talking Signs condition (t(11) = 14.4, p<.001).

On the independent travel task, when not using Talking Signs for the relatively easy routes, four participants successfully reached the destination, three stopped at an incorrect destination, and five had not arrived at the destination within four minutes ("timed out"). When using the Talking Signs system on easy routes, six participants arrived at the destination within the four minute limit, three went to incorrect destinations, and three were timed out. However, Chi square tests of “success” vs. “no success” (i.e. incorrect destination or timed out), for both Talking Sign and No Talking Sign conditions revealed no significant differences.

Nine participants attempted the relatively difficult routes. For these routes, one participant successfully reached the destinations without using Talking Signs, five reached incorrect destinations, and three were timed out. When using theTalking Signs system, five participants reached the destination, two reached incorrect destinations, and two were timed out. A Chi square test of “success” vs. “no success” for the No Talking Sign condition revealed that for difficult routes with No Talking Signs, significantly more participants did not succeed than succeeded (X2 = 5.4, p<.05). However, a Chi square test of “success” vs. “no success” for the Talking Sign condition revealed no significant differences. Therefore, significantly more people succeeded with Talking Signs.