A Kendall correlation coefficient (
rk) estimated among the ordinal model variables at 0.05 level of significance (α) shown in
Figure 2. The Figure shows the ellipse-shaped correlogram for model’s variables. It indicates a significance correlation among Ps variables, Ds variables, and between I and R variables with a large effect size. The
rk among the P variables with a minimum value of
rk = 0.79, indicating a large effect size. The
rk among the D variables with a minimum value of
rk = 0.79, indicating a large effect size. The
rk = 0.83 between R1 and I1 also indicated a large effect size. The
rk among the P and D variables had a maximum value of 0.20, indicating a small effect size. The
rk between the P variables, R1, and I1 had a maximum value of 0.25, indicating a small effect size. The
rk between the D variables, R1, and I1 had maximum value of 0.25, indicating a small effect size.
3.2.1. Planning for the EPE’s Item Correlation Analysis
A Kendall correlation analysis was conducted among variables P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5. Cohen’s standard was used to evaluate the strength of the relationships, where coefficients between 0.10 and 0.29 indicated a small effect size, coefficients between 0.30 and 0.49 indicated a moderate effect size, and coefficients above 0.50 indicated a large effect size [
37]. The correlations were examined using Holm corrections to adjust for multiple comparisons based on an alpha value of 0.05. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and P2 (
rk = 0.80,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and P2 was 0.80, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, P2 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and P3 (
rk = 0.85, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and P3 was 0.85, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, P3 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and P4 (
rk = 0.81,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and P4 was 0.81, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, P4 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and P5 (
rk = 0.82,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and P5 was 0.82, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, P5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and P3 (
rk = 0.82,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and P3 was 0.82, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, P3 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and P4 (
rk = 0.83,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and P4 was 0.83, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, P4 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and P5 (
rk = 0.84,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and P5 was 0.84, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, P5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P3 and P4 (
rk = 0.86,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P3 and P4 was 0.86, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as P3 increased, P4 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P3 and P5 (
rk = 0.81,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P3 and P5 was 0.81, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as P3 increased, P5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P4 and P5 (
rk = 0.79,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P4 and P5 was 0.79, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as P4 increased, P5 tended to increase.
Table 6 presents the results of the correlations.
3.2.2. Using Data and Information’s Item Correlation Analysis
A significant positive correlation was observed between D1 and D2 (rk = 0.81, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D1 and D2 was 0.81, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D1 increased, D2 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D1 and D3 (rk = 0.83, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D1 and D3 was 0.83, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D1 increased, D3 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D1 and D4 (rk = 0.80, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D1 and D4 was 0.80, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D1 increased, D4 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D1 and D5 (rk = 0.79, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D1 and D5 was 0.79, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D1 increased, D5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D1 and D6 (rk = 0.83, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D1 and D6 was 0.83, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D1 increased, D6 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D2 and D3 (rk = 0.81, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D2 and D3 was 0.81, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D2 increased, D3 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D2 and D4 (rk = 0.83, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D2 and D4 was 0.83, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D2 increased, D4 tended to increase.
A significant positive correlation was observed between D2 and D5 (
rk = 0.79,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D2 and D5 was 0.79, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D2 increased, D5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D2 and D6 (
rk = 0.81,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D2 and D6 was 0.81, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D2 increased, D6 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D3 and D4 (
rk = 0.82,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D3 and D4 was 0.82, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D3 increased, D4 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D3 and D5 (
rk = 0.80,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D3 and D5 was 0.80, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D3 increased, D5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D3 and D6 (
rk = 0.81,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D3 and D6 was 0.81, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D3 increased, D6 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D4 and D5 (
rk = 0.80,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D4 and D5 was 0.80, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D4 increased, D5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D4 and D6 (
rk = 0.80,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D4 and D6 was 0.80, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D4 increased, D6 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D5 and D6 (
rk = 0.88,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D5 and D6 was 0.88, indicating a large effect size. This correlation indicated that as D5 increased, D6 tended to increase.
Table 7 lists Kendall correlation results for variables D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6.
3.2.4. Planning, Using Data and Information, and Reviewing and Improving EPEs Item Correlation Analysis
The correlations were examined based on an alpha value of 0.05. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and D1 (rk = 0.15, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and D1 was 0.15, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, D1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and D2 (rk = 0.14, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and D2 was 0.14, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, D2 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and D3 (rk = 0.13, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and D3 was 0.13, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, D3 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and D4 (rk = 0.15, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and D4 was 0.15, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, D4 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and D5 (rk = 0.15, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and D5 was 0.15, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, D5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and D6 (rk = 0.16, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and D6 was 0.16, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, D6 tended to increase.
A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and D1 (rk = 0.16, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and D1 was 0.16, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, D1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and D2 (rk = 0.18, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and D2 was 0.18, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, D2 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and D3 (rk = 0.18, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and D3 was 0.18, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, D3 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and D4 (rk = 0.19, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and D4 was 0.19, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, D4 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and D5 (rk = 0.16, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and D5 was 0.16, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, D5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and D6 (rk = 0.17, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and D6 was 0.17, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, D6 tended to increase.
A significant positive correlation was observed between P3 and D1 (rk = 0.18, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P3 and D1 was 0.18, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P3 increased, D1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P3 and D2 (rk = 0.16, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P3 and D2 was 0.16, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P3 increased, D2 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P3 and D3 (rk = 0.18, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P3 and D3 was 0.18, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P3 increased, D3 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P3 and D4 (rk = 0.18, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P3 and D4 was 0.18, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P3 increased, D4 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P3 and D5 (rk = 0.20, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P3 and D5 was 0.20, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P3 increased, D5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P3 and D6 (rk = 0.20, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P3 and D6 was 0.20, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P3 increased, D6 tended to increase.
A significant positive correlation was observed between P4 and D1 (rk = 0.13, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P4 and D1 was 0.13, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P4 increased, D1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P4 and D2 (rk = 0.15, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P4 and D2 was 0.15, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P4 increased, D2 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P4 and D3 (rk = 0.15, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P4 and D3 was 0.15, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P4 increased, D3 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P4 and D4 (rk = 0.16, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P4 and D4 was 0.16, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P4 increased, D4 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P4 and D5 (rk = 0.20, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P4 and D5 was 0.20, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P4 increased, D5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P4 and D6 (rk = 0.19, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P4 and D6 was 0.19, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P4 increased, D6 tended to increase.
A significant positive correlation was observed between P5 and D1 (rk = 0.16, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P5 and D1 was 0.16, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P5 increased, D1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P5 and D2 (rk = 0.19, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P5 and D2 was 0.19, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P5 increased, D2 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P5 and D3 (rk = 0.17, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P5 and D3 was 0.17, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P5 increased, D3 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P5 and D4 (rk = 0.17, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P5 and D4 was 0.17, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P5 increased, D4 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P5 and D5 (rk = 0.15, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P5 and D5 was 0.15, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P5 increased, D5 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P5 and D6 (rk = 0.16, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P5 and D6 was 0.16, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P5 increased, D6 tended to increase.
A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and R1 (rk = 0.19, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and R1 was 0.19, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P1 and I1 (rk = 0.22, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P1 and I1 was 0.22, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P1 increased, I1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and R1 (rk = 0.20, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and R1 was 0.20, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P2 and I1 (rk = 0.22, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P2 and I1 was 0.22, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P2 increased, I1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P3 and R1 (rk = 0.23, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P3 and R1 was 0.23, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P3 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P3 and I1 (rk = 0.25, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P3 and I1 was 0.25, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P3 increased, I1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P4 and R1 (rk = 0.23, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P4 and R1 was 0.23, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P4 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P4 and I1 (rk = 0.25, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P4 and I1 was 0.25, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P4 increased, I1 tended to increase.
A significant positive correlation was observed between P5 and R1 (rk = 0.20, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P5 and R1 was 0.20, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P5 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between P5 and I1 (rk = 0.23, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between P5 and I1 was 0.23, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as P5 increased, I1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D1 and R1 (rk = 0.19, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D1 and R1 was 0.19, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D1 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D1 and I1 (rk = 0.21, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D1 and I1 was 0.21, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D1 increased, I1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between R1 and I1 (rk = 0.83, p < 0.001). A significant positive correlation was observed between D2 and R1 (rk = 0.19, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D2 and R1 was 0.19, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D2 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D2 and I1 (rk = 0.22, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D2 and I1 was 0.22, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D2 increased, I1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D3 and R1 (rk = 0.21, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D3 and R1 was 0.21, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D3 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D3 and I1 (rk = 0.24, p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D3 and I1 was 0.24, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D3 increased, I1 tended to increase.
A significant positive correlation was observed between D4 and R1 (
rk = 0.20,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D4 and R1 was 0.20, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D4 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D4 and I1 (
rk = 0.21,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D4 and I1 was 0.21, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D4 increased, I1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D5 and R1 (
rk = 0.24,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D5 and R1 was 0.24, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D5 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D5 and I1 (
rk = 0.25,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D5 and I1 was 0.25, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D5 increased, I1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D6 and R1 (
rk = 0.20,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D6 and R1 was 0.20, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D6 increased, R1 tended to increase. A significant positive correlation was observed between D6 and I1 (
rk = 0.25,
p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient between D6 and I1 was 0.25, indicating a small effect size. This correlation indicated that as D6 increased, I1 tended to increase.
Table 9 presents Kendall correlation results among the ISO 14031 dimensions.