Changes for page Test

Last modified by Mathieu Jung-Muller on 2022/04/04 13:52

From 109.1 to 110.1 From 113.2 to 114.1

From version

110.1

edited by Pietro Piccini
on 2022/04/03 16:53

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

113.2

edited by Sneha Lodha
on 2022/04/03 23:58

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Author

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--XWiki.PietroPiccini
++XWiki.snehalodha

Content

@@ -186,19 +186,13 @@
  == Results ==
--We produced our results as interactive graphs. Only a printed version is shown below. To get a better version with more information (data point information on mouse hovering for instance), click the provided link for each graph.
++The following sections contains the results gather from the affect and system assessment. Apart from the printed version being included below, the results are also included as interactive graphs. To get a better version with more information (data point information on mouse hovering for instance), simply click the provided link for each graph.
--For the statistical test, we used the Wilcoxon test because we do not assume that our data is normally distributed.
--we used the Wilcoxon Signed-rank test to measure the statistical significance of the mood change before and after Pepper's interaction because the data comes from the same group of participants.
--To measure the statistical significance between two different groups (liking gardening group and disliking gardening group) we use the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test.
--The statistics value of the test is the sum of the difference in the rank.
--the p-value is the probability of obtaining results at least as extreme as the one we obtained given that the null hypothesis is true. We decided to set a threshold of 5% to claim statistical significance.
--
  === Affect assessment ===
  [[Affect assessment, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/mood_questionnaire.html]]
  [[image:mood.svg]]
--
++Figure 1: Graphical results of affect assessment before and after conducting the evaluation activity with Pepper.
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
  <html>
@@ -260,10 +260,12 @@
  </body>
  </html>
  {{/html}}
++Table 1: Results of wilcoxon statistical test on affect assessment
--The hypothesis H0 is that Pepper does not have any effect. In this case, the questionnaires 1 and 2 should give the exact same values for each of the six feelings. However, the graphs and table below show that there is a slight increase regarding positive feelings, and a sligt decrease as well regarding negative feelings.
--There are however many biases in these results. The main one that we isolated is that the activity of gardening itself could lead to the mood improvement. For this reason, we made subgroups based on whether the participants liked gardening or not.
++We analyzed the participants' moods before and after the interaction with Pepper in order to be able to observe positive and negative changes that are caused by the interaction with Pepper. The hypothesis H0 is that Pepper does not have any effect, which would mean that the questionnaires 1 and 2 should give the exact same values for each of the six feelings. However, the graphs and table below show that there is a slight increase regarding positive feelings, and a slight decrease as well regarding negative feelings. The Wilcoxon Signed-rank demonstrated that the only statistically significant change happened for contentness and tiredness based on a p-value threshold of 0.05.
++There however exists an important source of bias in the above mentioned result. The main one that we isolated is that the activity of gardening itself could lead to the mood improvement. For this reason, we made subgroups based on whether the participants liked gardening or not.
++
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
  <html>
@@ -326,9 +326,12 @@
  </html>
  {{/html}}
--We did not notice any relevant pattern indicating a significant difference between "like gardening" and "dislike gardening" groups. It seems to be that this is not the cause of the mood improvement.
++In order to analyze the difference in the mood change between people who liked the activity of gardening and people who did not, we divided the assessments into two groups and performed a Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test. The results show that only the contentness mood shows a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Hence, we did not notice any relevant pattern indicating a significant difference between "like gardening" and "dislike gardening" groups. It seems to be that this is not the cause of the mood improvement.
++This confirms that PwDs can potentially benefit from a boost of energy from interacting with Pepper and, if the activity is enjoyable, a general improvement in contentness as well.
++
++
  === System assessment ===
  [[System assessment, first subset of questions, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_1.html]]
@@ -572,13 +572,13 @@
  == Discussion ==
--* Reliability: Yes. One could replicate the same experiment with other patients.
--* Validity: TBD.
--* Biases: TBD.
--* Scope: No. It would be very difficult to generalize the results, since each prototype is built for a special patient. However, if the results conclude that the customized prototypes did improve the well-being of the people, then similar effort to customize Pepper for more patients should produce similar effects.
--* Ecological validity: Yes. Since we compare "without Pepper" (BEFORE) and "with Pepper" (AFTER) in a similar environment (i.e., for everything but Pepper), the results are not dependent on the environment.
++* Reliability: The evaluation is reliable. One could replicate the same experiment with other patients.
++* Validity: This evaluation is not really valid. Our feasible evaluation does not have the corresponding target group, and is of a much smaller scope compared to our ideal evaluation. We cannot test all our claims.
++* Biases: The evaluation has large biases. This is discussed more in detail in the limitations where the different bias factors are explained.
++* Scope: The evaluation can be generalized to a larger scope, although with a lot of care, since the evaluation is not fully valid.
++* Ecological validity: The evaluation is partially valid in terms of influence from the environment. The affect assessment questionnaire is the same before the activity and after, with the same environment, so the environment is technically not involved in this. However, the system assessment questionnaire does rely on some elements from the environment.
--**mood questionnaire**
++**Affect assessment questionnaire**
  We analyzed the participants' moods before and after the interaction with Pepper in order to be able to observe positive and negative changes that are caused by the interaction with Pepper. the results showed that, in general, there is a slight increase in positive moods and a slight decrease in negative moods. The Wilcoxon Signed-rank demonstrated that the only statistically significant change happened for contentness and tiredness based on a p-value threshold of 0.05.
@@ -624,4 +624,14 @@
  From the system assessment questionnaire, participants quite agree that completing the task was a good accomplishment for them. This supports our claim CL08: the PwD feels accomplished.
--We did not have any question explictly aimed at targeting our claim CL08. However, frustration, annoyance and pressure are often linked to a lack of understanding from the other part. We can combine these with the question about whether Pepper cared about helping the participants, and with our observations during the experiment. When aggregated together, it seems that generally speaking, the participants felt understood. This supports our claim CL08: the PwD feels understood. However, we did notice frustration a couple of times from the participants, because of Pepper's speech recognition system.
++We did not have any question explictly aimed at targeting our claim CL08. However, frustration, annoyance and pressure are often linked to a lack of understanding from the other part. We can combine these with the question about whether Pepper cared about helping the participants, and with our observations during the experiment. When aggregated together, it seems that generally speaking, the participants felt understood. This supports our claim CL08: the PwD feels understood.
++
++== Limitations ==
++
++Although there seems to be a slight general trend that shows that our claim are satisfied, there are many limitations to take into account that reduce the significance of the results.
++
++1. Students are not the target group, and especially do not have any form of dementia. This means the effect is probably completely different on them than on actual patients.
++1. The evaluation is very generic and does not reflect one of our main functionalities, which is to have a customized agent for a PwD.
++1. Students are Master students at TUD. So they are all studying some field related to engineering. Most of them were even Computer Science students and/or students from the SCE class. This means they globally have a very different understanding and familiarity with robots compared to the rest of the population, causing a big bias in their interaction with Pepper.
++1. The explanation of Pepper was very short (around 1 min), so many participants had some difficulties interacting with Pepper in the beginning. It improved after some activity steps.
++1. Finally, our participants have good intentions and have a positive a priori on our experiment. Therefore, they are more likely to answer with positive results than if they did not know us at all. This again may cause a significant bias in their answers.