Changes for page 4. Evaluation Methods

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -26,7 +26,15 @@
26	26
27	27	When executing an experiment, it is also interesting to examine the interaction from multiple lenses, in order to identify issues and opportunities that are not immediately obvious. That can mean from the perspective of a different stakeholder that is not the main user, other groups that might not directly interact with the system or even a more technical or legal perspective.
28	28
29		-For our study, the process we followed mostly resembles the IMPACT framework since we focused on each of these elements separately and tried to combine them to build our evaluation study. We first defined our research questions and then decided how we could best evaluate them. We decided on a within-subject design and a combination of quantitative and qualitative data. The element of the participants for our study was quite predetermined since we didn't have the access to people with actual dementia, therefore we would use students, peers, and friends to test our hypotheses. By examining our use cases, we thought that the most interesting one we wanted to test was the meal discourse, and consequently, we defined the rest of the aspects regarding the prototype, the experimentation process, and the environment.
	29	+For testing the general and //food & music// claims, we opted for already existing questionnaires that have been previously validated (measuring the robot's pleasantness and the participants' mood), in combination with some of our own questions that consider food and music. A subset of the EVEA (Sanz, 2001) questionnaire was used to assess the participant's mood before and after each interaction, whereas a subset of the Godspeed (Bartneck et al., 2009) questionnaire was given to the participants to rate how pleasant and intelligent they found the robot to be. A few additional questions were used to determine the relation of the participant with the food and the music, either before or during the interaction, and we also asked some questions in an interview-style to gather qualitative data.
30	30
31		-1. Kurniawan, S. (2004). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction by Preece, Sharp, and Rogers (2001), ISBN 0471492787.
	31	+For statistical interpretation of the numerical results, a paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used (Wilcoxon, 1945). The test is a non-parametrical statistical test than can be used to compare paired samples, such as the before-after distributions, or the distributions of the same question with two versions of the robot. The test was used to test three different null-hypotheses; the hypothesis that the first distribution median is larger/different/smaller than the median of the second distribution.
	32	+
	33	+1. Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics, 1(1), 71-81.
32	32	1. Benyon, D., Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2005). Designing interactive systems: People, activities, contexts, technologies. Pearson Education.
	35	+1. HAl-Anssari, H., Al-Anssari, H., Abdel-Qader, I., Abdel-Qader, I., Mickus, M., & Mickus, M. (2021). Food Intake Vision-Based Recognition System via Histogram of Oriented Gradients and Support Vector Machine for Persons With Alzheimer's Disease. International Journal Of Healthcare Information Systems And Informatics, 16(4), 1-19. [[https:~~/~~/doi.org/10.4018/ijhisi.295817>>url:https://doi.org/10.4018/ijhisi.295817]]
	36	+1. Kigozi, E., Egwela, C., Kamoga, L., Nalugo Mbalinda, S., & Kaddumukasa, M. (2021). Nutrition Challenges of Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias: A Qualitative Study from the Perspective of Caretakers in a Mental National Referral Hospital. Neuropsychiatric Disease And Treatment, Volume 17, 2473-2480. [[https:~~/~~/doi.org/10.2147/ndt.s325463>>url:https://doi.org/10.2147/ndt.s325463]]
	37	+1. Kurniawan, S. (2004). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction by Preece, Sharp, and Rogers (2001), ISBN 0471492787.
	38	+1. Poor appetite and dementia. Alzheimer's Society. (2022). Retrieved 2 April 2022, from [[https:~~/~~/www.alzheimers.org.uk/get-support/daily-living/poor-appetite-dementia#:~~~~:text=A%20person%20with%20dementia%20may%20lose%20interest%20in%20food.>>url:https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/get-support/daily-living/poor-appetite-dementia#:~~:text=A%20person%20with%20dementia%20may%20lose%20interest%20in%20food.]],loss%20and%20less%20muscle%20strength.
	39	+1. Sanz, J. (2001). SCALE FOR MOOD ASSESSMENT (EVEA).
	40	+1. Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80–83. [[https:~~/~~/doi.org/10.2307/3001968>>url:https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968]]