*3.4. Utility*

Most of the sampled population (94.4%) found the exercise useful for real-life activities (M = 4.69, SD = 0.623). While 18.3% strongly and 19.7% mildly agreed that the exercise was useful for commanding officers, 29.6% remained neutral (M = 3.17, SD = 1.248). Some 42.3% either mildly or strongly agreed that the exercises were useful for ordinary operative staff. Here, 42.3% remained neutral (M = 3.40, SD = 0.900). Finally, under half (45.1%) agreed that their experiences of the exercises would affect their daily work, while 33.8% remained neutral (M = 3.40, SD = 1.102). The overall mean for the utility dimension was 3.68 (SD = 0.543).

#### *3.5. Bivariate and Multivariate Regression Analysis.*

#### **RQ 1:** *To what extent is there a relationship between participation in Norwegian wildland-fire collaboration exercises and perceived level of learning?*

*Bivariate analysis*. The most pronounced significance was found between learning and the item "Clear instructions of collaboration were presented" (r = 0.501, r2 = 0.239, F = 20,761, *p* ≤ 0.000). The item "The exercises were focused on collaboration" had the second highest pronounced significance (r = 0.451, r2 = 0.191, F = 16.349, *p* ≤ 0.000), followed by "Sufficient forms of discussions were provided" (r = 0.421, r2 = 0.164, F = 13.564, *p* ≤ 0.000). "My points of view were regarded" had an R-value of 0.398 (r2 = 0.145, F = 12.034, *p* ≤ 0.001), while "there were opportunities to improvise" had an R-value of 0.282 (r2 = 0.65, F = 5.508, *p* ≤ 0.022). "Collaboration was initiated immediately" had somewhat lower significance level (r = 0.255, r2 = 0.050, F = 4.439, *p* ≤ 0.039). The final item with a pronounced significant was "Personnel in need of exercise participated" with an *R*-value of 0.253 (r2 = 0.049, F = 4.291, *p* ≤ 0.042). The item "I performed well-known activities" was found insignificant (r = 0.06, r2 = −0.01, F = 0.30, *p* = 0.58) and was therefore excluded from the multiple regression analysis (Table 3).

> **Table 3.** Bivariate regression of the collaboration dimensions of learning.


*Note:* N = 71, sig = *p* ≤ 0.05.

*Multivariate analysis*. The joint collaborative characteristics predicted 29.3% (r2 = 0.293) of the learning variance, meaning that the remaining 70.7% of the predicted variance was unaccounted for. Still, the variables "There were opportunities to improvise," "Collaboration was initiated immediately," and "Personnel in need of exercise participated" were found to be significant (Table 4). The regression analysis indicated a 61% (r = 0.61) covariation between collaboration and learning, which is considered strong [49].

**Table 4.** Multiple regression of the collaboration dimensions of learning.


*Note*: N = 71, R = 0.611, *r*2 = 29.3 sig = *p* ≤ 0.05 **RQ 2: (2)** *To what extent is there a relationship between participation in Norwegian wildland-fire collaboration exercises and perceived level of usefulness?*

*Bivariate analysis* (Table 5). The most pronounced significance was found between usefulness and "I learned others concepts and abbreviations" (r = 0.436, r2 = 0.177, F = 14.755, *p* ≤ 0.000). This was followed by "I learned about other's organizational aspects" (r = 0.388, r2 = 0.137, F = 10,998, *p* ≤ 0.002) and "I learned new things during the exercise" (r = 0.343, r2 = 0.103, F = 8.259, *p* ≤ 0.006). The item "I learned about other's prioritizing of activities" received a R-value of 0.324 (r2 = 0.091, F = 7.290, *p* ≤ 0.009), and "I learned about other's communication patterns" a R-value of 0.323 (r2 = 0.090, F = 7.358, *p* ≤ 0.009).

**Table 5.** Bivariate regression of the learning dimension of usefulness.


*Note:* N = 71, sig = *p* ≤ 0.05.

*Multivariate analysis* (Table 6.). The perceived learning items predicted 17% (r2 = 0.170) of the usefulness variance, meaning that the remaining 83% of the predicted variance was unaccounted for. The only item that was found significant was "I learned about other's prioritizing of activities" (*p* = −0.049). Thus, these results indicate a medium to small [49] covariation between learning and utility.

> **Table 6.** Multiple regression of the learning dimensions of usefulness.


*Note*: N = 71, R = 0.488, *r*2 = 0.170, sig *p* ≤ 0.05
