Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -14,12 +14,13 @@
14	14
15	15	= Method =
16	16
17		-To this effect, we would like to invite users to participate in a usability study. In the study, we will assess our research question by performing within-subject experiments. The participants will walk twice randomly ordered: once with a //caretaker// and once with //WAF//. The former will enact the activity of walking in the current setting and the latter will do the equivalent with the robot. Afterward, participants are assessed by means of Likert-scales to measure the changes. The difference in scores between the caretaker and the WAF setting will then be subjected to a Wilcoxon [[(Conover, 1998, p. 250)>>https://www-wiley-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/en-nl/Practical+Nonparametric+Statistics%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9780471160687]] test to determine whether the results are statistically significant. If the significance has been demonstrated, then we can reject the null hypothesis: walking with the WAF will not provide an increased feeling of autonomy compared to walking with a caretaker.
	17	+To this effect, we would like to invite users to participate in a usability study. In the study, we will assess our research question by dividing the participants into two groups: one with a //caretaker// and one with //WAF//. The former group will enact the activity of walking in the current setting and the latter group will do the equivalent with the robot. Afterward, both groups are assessed by means of Likert-scales to measure the increase. The difference in scores between the caretaker and the WAF setting will then be subjected to a Wilcoxon [[(Conover, 1998, p. 250)>>https://www-wiley-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/en-nl/Practical+Nonparametric+Statistics%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9780471160687]] test to determine whether the increase is statistically significant. If the significance has been demonstrated, then we can reject the null hypothesis: walking with the WAF will not provide an increased feeling of autonomy compared to walking with a caretaker.
18	18
	19	+
19	19	== Participants ==
20	20
21	21	For our study, we would have liked to invite people with dementia to participate. However, user testing with a vulnerable group such as this one is difficult seeing the current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.
22		-For this reason, we decided to design an experiment to be conducted on our fellow students. Students will be briefed on dementia. Then they take on the role of one of the personas and roleplay a person with dementia. Through this roleplay, we aim to simulate a study with people with dementia as accurately as possible in the given situation. We will give them one page of the [[persona handout document>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/download/Test/WebHome/personas-handouts.pdf?rev=1.1]] to aid them in their roleplay and study character traits that might influence acceptance of WAF.
	23	+For this reason, we decided to design an experiment to be conducted on our fellow students. Students will be briefed on dementia. Then they take on the role of one of the personas and roleplay a person with dementia. Through this roleplay, we aim to simulate a study with people with dementia as accurately as possible in the given situation. We will give them one page of the [[persona handout document>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/download/Test/WebHome/personas-handouts.pdf?rev=1.1]]
23	23
24	24	== Experimental design ==
25	25
...	...	@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
41	41
42	42	Wandering off during a walk
43	43	A person with dementia may become lost in their current surroundings. They might wander off from the predetermined route. Depending on the study group, either the caretaker or WAF will guide the person back to the route.
44		-
	45	+
45	45	== Measures ==
46	46
47	47	To measure the effectiveness of our solution, we use a questionnaire. Since people with dementia may experience difficulties with expressing themselves in a conversation, this questionnaire is led by an interviewer [[(Neerincx et al., to appear)>>]]. A caretaker may also be present to help the person with dementia accurately express themselves.
...	...	@@ -58,10 +58,6 @@
58	58
59	59	* A MiRo + bracelet
60	60	* Caretaker
61		-* Questionnaire
62		-* Consent forms
63		-* Persona handouts
64		-* Controlling device
65	65
66	66	= Results =
67	67
...	...	@@ -120,12 +120,16 @@
120	120	We see that in the current state of our prototype, this is not the case. The caretaker is preferred when asked if the user feels in charge, feels safe, and feels trustworthy. However, we note that WAF does slightly outperform the caretaker in regard to happiness. We think that further development is needed to accurately gauge if walking with WAF will eventually score equal or better compared to walking with a caretaker.
121	121	We see flaws in the limited testing setup that was available to us. With only eight participants, it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions from the experiment. Additionally, these participants were actors and not real people with dementia, which may have caused bias in our results. Finally, while we intended to have the participants walk through a hallway accompanied by WAF, we only had a meeting room available to conduct the experiment in.
122	122
123		-=== Inclusivity ===
124	124
	121	+
	122	+==== Inclusivity ====
	123	+
125	125	In addition to the questionnaire, we conducted a short interview with our participant who is hard-of-hearing. Their study was conducted without them wearing their hearing aids.
126	126	We asked them if they thought their experience would differ if they were wearing their hearing aids. Their answer was that the biggest thing was that in a real scenario, the wristband doesn't give you enough information about what to do. It only tells you that you are something wrong. They commented that if they were 83, they would not have enough direction from this, compared to someone who could hear sounds: WAF could direct them back by barking at the user, for example. However, they mention that if you are severely hearing impaired, there is probably nothing you can do other than vibrating the wristband.
127	127	We asked them how we could make it more inclusive. They mention that the robot is small and not very visible, which might cause problems for people with a sight impairment. People who are not familiar with walking dogs would also not naturally keep looking at WAF. They recommended using a larger robot.
128	128
	128	+
	129	+
129	129	= Conclusions =
130	130	In conclusion, the prototype as-is is not capable of outperforming the benefits of a traditional walk with a caretaker. Additional work is needed to bring the prototype to a state of usability where users walking with MiRo can feel trust, happiness, safety, and being in charge. We would like to conduct a similar experiment with real people with dementia, in a setting that is familiar to them, to properly simulate a realistic use case. In the future, we would increase the number of participants to gain better insights into the usability of our prototype.
131	131