diff --git a/doc/report.Rnw b/doc/report.Rnw index 7785ec8..0f25efb 100644 --- a/doc/report.Rnw +++ b/doc/report.Rnw @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ To examine the effect of keyboard layout on typing performance, repeated-measure \subsubsection{Typing speed (WPM)} -The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of layout on typing speed, $F(2, 22) = 106.30, p < .001$ (Table~\ref{tab:anova_wpm}). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction indicated that QWERTY yielded significantly higher typing speeds than both DVORAK ($p < .001$) and CIRCLE ($p < .001$). +The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of layout on typing speed, $F(2, 22) = 120.56, p < .001$ (Table~\ref{tab:anova_wpm}). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction indicated that QWERTY yielded significantly higher typing speeds than both DVORAK ($p < .001$) and CIRCLE ($p < .001$). %Anova RM for WPM @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ kable(wpm_effect, \end{table} \subsubsection{Total Error Rate (TER)} -In contrast, the ANOVA for total error rate did not reveal a significant effect of layout, $F(2, 22) = 0.43, p = 0.657$ (Table~\ref{tab:anova_ter}). This indicates that accuracy was comparable across QWERTY, DVORAK, and CIRCLE layouts. Although QWERTY exhibited a slightly higher mean TER than the other layouts, these differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, while QWERTY facilitated faster typing, it did not compromise accuracy. +In contrast, the ANOVA for total error rate did not reveal a significant effect of layout, $F(2, 22) = 0.71, p = 0.505$ (Table~\ref{tab:anova_ter}). This indicates that accuracy was comparable across QWERTY, DVORAK, and CIRCLE layouts. Although QWERTY exhibited a slightly higher mean TER than the other layouts, these differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, while QWERTY facilitated faster typing, it did not compromise accuracy. %Anova RM for TER <>=