Time Savings Reported by AVA Users
Yes— AVA users reported time savings , and the paper reports both (a) no statistically significant causal (treatment vs. control) difference and (b) significant time savings associated with heavier/returning use . Nul...
Yes— AVA users reported time savings , and the paper reports both (a) no statistically significant causal (treatment vs. control) difference and (b) significant time savings associated with heavier/returning use . Null causal ITT result: The endline survey based intention to treat (ITT) analysis found no significant differences in time saved between the AVA treatment and waitlist control groups (lower bound: b = 0.56, p .05 ; upper bound: b = 0.78, p .05 ). [:cite[1]{ln=1}], [:cite[1]{ln=2}], [:cite[1]{ln=3}] But dose response for returning users: The paper also ran a difference in differences (DiD) analysis by usage intensity (single vs. multiple sessions). It found that users who engaged over multiple sessions reported saving more time (lower bound: b = 1.84, p < .10 ; upper bound: b = 3.27, p < .10 ). [:cite[2]{ln=1}], [:cite[2]{ln=2}], [:cite[2]{ln=3}] Illustrative magnitude: The appendix describes a dose–response relationship where returning users (multiple sessions) reported 2.4–3.9 hours/week time savings compared to single session users. [:cite[3]{ln=1}] So the honest takeaway is: the strongest “time saved” evidence is tied to sustained/returning use (multiple sessions), not to a clean treatment vs control causal effect in ITT.