Comparison of Intellectus Statistics and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

Differences in User Performance Based on Presentation of Statistical Data
  • Allen C. ChenEmail author
  • Sabrina Moran
  • Yuting Sun
  • Kim-Phuong L. Vu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10906)


Data-to-text systems create reports using natural language to simplify the presentation of complex data. Intellectus Statistics (IS) is a cloud-based statistical analysis software that provides users with output displayed in American Psychological Association (APA) narrative format. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) is another statistical analysis software; however, SPSS output is mainly presented numerically with tables and graphs. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of using IS and SPSS to conduct and interpret analyses. An output presented in narrative format could be beneficial to students learning statistics who may have difficulty interpreting results. Overall, accuracy scores and time on task for the two software were not significantly different. Perceived usability and ease of use ratings for IS were significantly higher compared to SPSS. On the other hand, ratings of perceived usefulness were not significantly different between the two software. Results also suggested that participants preferred IS and felt more confident in conducting statistical analyses when using the software. Though there was no significant difference in task accuracy between the two software, data-to-text output helped students with interpreting assumptions for analyses and formatting written results.


Data-to-text systems Data interpretation  Visual display of information 


  1. 1.
    Albert, W., Tullis, T.: Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Newnes, London (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Inter. 24(6), 574–594 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gkatzia, D.: Content selection in data-to-text systems: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.08375 (2016)
  4. 4.
    Guritno, S., Siringoringo, H.: Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and attitude towards online shopping usefulness towards online airlines ticket purchase. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 81, 212–216 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGrath, A.L.: Content, affective, and behavioral challenges to learning: students’ experiences learning statistics. Int. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 8(2), 6 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmeck, R.R.: Improving learning by improving thinking. Educ. Leadersh. 38(5), 384–385 (1981)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stankov, L., Morony, S., Lee, Y.P.: Confidence: the best non-cognitive predictor of academic achievement? Educ. Psychol. 34(1), 9–28 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Understanding the 2014–24 projections: Career Outlook. Accessed 27 Nov 2017
  10. 10.
    Wasserstein, R.: Communicating the power and impact of our profession: a heads up for the next Executive Directors of the ASA. Am. Stat. 69(2), 96–99 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allen C. Chen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sabrina Moran
    • 1
  • Yuting Sun
    • 1
  • Kim-Phuong L. Vu
    • 1
  1. 1.California State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations