Exact(1)
Woolley et al. reported on group performance in over 700 individuals working in groups of 2 to 5 in a range of face to face tasks; a collective intelligence emerged from the open group beyond the sum total of individual input (Woolley et al., 2010).
Similar(59)
C → F: Computer-delivered tasks first/face-to-face tasks second; Face-to-face tasks first/computer-delivered tasks second.
Moreover, a female delivered all of the face-to-face tasks.
Therefore, the first administration of the face-to-face tasks was not beneficial for performance on the computer-delivered tasks.
The face-to-face tasks were constructed using the same content and format as those delivered by computer; they were conducted on a one-to-one basis.
The same pool of raters scored the face-to-face tasks and used the same scoring rubric that was used for the computer-delivered tasks.
The Pearson's correlation coefficients ranged from.52 to.75 for the computer-delivered tasks and.60 to.74 for the face-to-face tasks.
Group A (n = 41) completed the computer-delivered tasks during Session 1 and the face-to-face tasks during Session 2; Group B (n = 38) completed the face-to-face tasks during Session 1 and the computer-delivered tasks during Session 2. The two sessions had an interval of seven to ten days between them.
Moreover, it is important to note that most of the participants did not rehearse their speech aloud during the face-to-face tasks; however, during the computer-delivered tasks, they may have combined preparing for the tasks with rehearsing for the tasks.
The rating agreements for both modes were satisfactory with moderately high exact agreement (54.4%–68.4%) and adjacent agreement (29.1%–45.6%) for the face-to-face tasks; similarly moderate exact agreement (49.4%72.2%%) and adjacent agreement (26.6%40.5%%) were found for the computer-delivered tasks.
In contrast, those who completed the face-to-face tasks first may have hoped to achieve a higher score on the subsequent computer-delivered tasks, but may not have strived for better performance since there was no reaction from the computer.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com