Wiki source code of Test

Version 101.1 by Mathieu Jung-Muller on 2022/04/03 14:06

version	line-number	content
32.1	1	= Ideal Evaluation (actual research) =
31.1	2
29.1	3	== Problem statement and research questions ==
	4
8.1	5	This project uses a Social Cognitive Engineering (SCE) approach to guide the design and research process. The SCE method provides a systematic approach to our study of robots for PwDs. The main goal of our application is to improve the well-being of the person with dementia (PwD) and of those living with them.
6.1	6
8.1	7	For the prototype that we have designed now, these are some research questions that we want to address.
	8
29.1	9	1. Are the different stakeholders able to use our prototype smoothly?
36.1	10	1. Does the prototype allow the PwD greater autonomy in their day-to-day life?
29.1	11	1. Does the prototype improve the emotional state of the PwD and their relatives?
28.1	12
29.1	13	== Method ==
1.1	14
36.1	15	As people with dementia have very specific situations (and because our prototype is built to deal with that aspect of customizability), we do not go for an identical experiment for all of them. Instead, the global setup is very similar, although Pepper is customized for the needs of every patient. Our evaluation can therefore be assimilated (with some reserve) to a within-subject evaluation. We also do pre-test and post-test.
29.1	16	Our main evaluation method is summative evaluation: we are trying to determine whether the robot has an impact and improves the frequency of "yes" in our yes-no driving questions.
1.1	17
2.1	18	== Participants ==
1.1	19
36.1	20	The study will be conducted on approximately twenty people in the early stages of dementia. To avoid too much gender imbalance, there will be at least five men and five women. For the same reason, we hope to find at least five people around 50 or younger, although we expect most participants to be over 70 years old.
37.2	21	The participants will be selected based on a pool of PwD who live at home and need regular visits from an HCP. Only the volunteers will be kept for the experiment. The participants must have no experience of a Pepper robot helping with dementia.
	22	As our experiment involves the PwD in their home environment, relatives and healthcare professionals (HCP) will also be involved in the process: although not being the targets of the experiment, they will contribute to obtaining the measurements and results.
1.1	23
2.1	24	== Experimental design ==
1.1	25
36.1	26	Since dementia is unique to every person, it is very hard to conduct a global experiment with the same conditions for all participants. Every one of them may have different issues in their day-to-day life, while also not having the same living conditions (alone, living with husband, family, etc), this would require a different treatment. Furthermore, we want to record whether our prototype leads to an improvement in life quality. This can not be done through a short experiment, because the reliability of such an experiment would be very low.
29.1	27	This means we need to record the patient at home and measure over an extended period of time if their well-being and autonomy globally improved.
	28
2.1	29	== Tasks ==
1.1	30
36.1	31	The PwD will live their daily life, without Pepper in the beginning, then accompanied by Pepper, as if they were not under any experiment. The fact that they actually are will obviously affect their behavior. Yet, we hope that not being recorded and being under a non-invasive experiment will help them not to stress out and may make them live their life as normally as possible.
37.2	32	The tasks performed during the evaluation by Pepper, by the PwD, and by Pepper and the PwD together, will be decided in consultation with the HCP (and potentially the relatives) based on the needs of each patient.
1.1	33
2.1	34	== Measures ==
1.1	35
36.1	36	We are planning to make behavioral and emotional measurements.
37.2	37	Behavioral measurements are the actions that the PwD is going to perform during the week, so it can be considered as subjective quantitative data. This will involve the relatives, the HCP, and the PwD themselves to quantify whether the use of Pepper did actually result in an increase in autonomy for the PwD.
	38	Emotional measurements are more related to the state of mind, change of expression, and mood, so they can be considered as qualitative data. This can be measured by frequent talks with the PwD, either by the relatives or the HCP.
	39	Measures will be done by oral discussions with the PwD, HCP, and relatives.
29.1	40
2.1	41	== Procedure ==
1.1	42
29.1	43	The whole experiment process is 4 weeks long, although only weeks 1 and 4 are technically part of the experiment itself.
37.2	44	During week 1, the PwD, the HCP, and the relatives will be asked to pay increased attention. Behavioral and emotional data will be collected. This is a regular week for the PwD, i.e., in the usual situation, except that there is more attention dedicated to them.
	45	During weeks 2 and 3, the PwD, the HCP, and the relatives will be introduced to Pepper, with the goal of getting used to it.
36.1	46	During week 4, which is the actual week of the experiment, attention will be spent trying to mirror week 1 as closely as possible. Behavioral and emotional data will be collected again.
20.1	47
29.1	48	== Material ==
20.1	49
23.1	50	1. Consent form. To protect the privacy of participants and ensure the evaluation process goes smoothly, we will ask participants to sign a consent form, indicating they are willing to take part in the evaluation and the data gathered from the experiment will be analyzed by researchers.
37.2	51	1. Pepper robot. Our robot is programmed using Choregraphe. The robot will have the same behavior for every participant. However, the input data will be entered by the HCP(and potentially the relatives).
1.1	52
29.1	53	== Results ==
1.1	54
29.1	55	Since each PwD has its own state of dementia and personal issues, it is very difficult to get uniform results, especially since they are collected orally.
36.1	56	Getting very nice, fully robust, and reliable results is merely a hope and a dream.
29.1	57	However, we can try to consider the main trends that we are interested in.
36.1	58	Thus, the results will be mainly focused on:
29.1	59	- How much autonomy did the PwD gain?
37.2	60	→ what did the HCP, relatives, and PwD report
29.1	61	→ how many tasks did they perform that they didn't do previously
	62	→ did the relatives feel they had more time for themselves
	63	- Did their emotional state improve?
	64	→ feelings from the PwD themselves
37.2	65	→ reports from relatives and HCP
29.1	66	These results will most likely never be yes-no results, but more like clues or hints that show whether some things worked on not, which will be the point of our discussion.
1.1	67
29.1	68	== Discussion ==
1.1	69
29.1	70	* Reliability: Yes. One could replicate the same experiment with other patients.
94.1	71	* Validity: TBD. (This this ideal evaluation has not been conducted, we cannot really estimate this.)
	72	* Biases: TBD.(This this ideal evaluation has not been conducted, we cannot really estimate this.)
36.1	73	* 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 efforts to customize Pepper for more patients should produce similar effects.
29.1	74	* 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.
1.1	75
29.1	76	== Conclusions ==
31.1	77
95.1	78	(Since this ideal evaluation has not been conducted, we do not have conclusions to be drawn.)
31.1	79
96.1	80
	81
33.1	82	= Feasible evaluation (students) =
31.1	83
	84	== Problem statement and research questions ==
	85
94.1	86	For the prototype that we have designed now, and for a smaller scope evaluation, the research questions are smaller-scope versions of our main research questions for the previous part.
	87	We also cannot test all our claims during only a short evaluation session with students.
31.1	88
94.1	89	1. Are the participants able to use our prototype smoothly?
	90	1. Does the prototype improve the autonomy of the patient on a specific activity?
	91	1. Does the prototype improve the emotional state of the participant after completing a specific activity?
31.1	92
43.1	93	Based on these questions and our evaluation setting, we can evaluate some of our claims from our Claim page.
	94
46.1	95	1. CL01: The PwD becomes aware of Pepper's presence.
	96	During the experiment, we can observe if this happens.
	97	1. CL02: The PwD feels understood.
	98	In the questionnaire, there are questions related to this.
	99	1. CL03: The PwD performs an activity step.
	100	We can verify this claim based on how far the participant went in the activity.
	101	1. CL08: The PwD feels accomplished.
	102	After the activity is done, there are two specific questions related to accomplishment.
	103	1. CL10: The PwD feels reassured.
	104	We can evaluate this from observing the participants, and from the affect questionnaire.
	105	1. CL11: The PwD feels content.
	106	There is a question related to this in the questionnaire.
43.1	107
31.1	108	== Method ==
	109
94.1	110	In order to collect qualitative data, we prepared two questionnaires to give to the participants: the affect assessment questionnaire and the system assessment questionnaire. All questionnaire questions are expressed in the form of statements and the participant can express one out of seven levels of agreement/disagreement from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The only exception is the additional remarks field at the end of the system assessment questionnaire, where the participants can freely put any comment/remark/feedback they have on the experiment.
31.1	111
42.1	112	Affect assessment
38.1	113
94.1	114	The affect assessment questionnaire asks the participant to describe their mood. The questionnaire is given two times: once before the experiments and once right after. The purpose of this questionnaire is to compare the mood experienced by the participant before the interaction with Pepper and after. The idea is to assess the effect of the activity. The questionnaire has six questions each designed to measure the level of a certain feeling experienced at the moment of filling the questionnaire. The six feelings we take into consideration are evaluated from the following statements:
38.1	115
94.1	116	1. I feel sad.
	117	1. I feel content.
	118	1. I feel calm.
	119	1. I feel tired.
	120	1. I feel nervous.
	121	1. I feel caring.
39.1	122
42.1	123	System assessment
39.1	124
42.1	125	The system assessment questionnaire is given after the interaction with Pepper and its purpose is to assess the participant's experience with Pepper in more detail. The questionnaire has fourteen questions which are designed to answer research questions as described below:
39.1	126
40.1	127	1. I like gardening
94.1	128	1. I would have known how to do the whole task without Pepper.
40.1	129	1. I think Pepper made the task easier for me.
	130	1. Pepper was easy to understand.
	131	1. I enjoyed the task more than if I had had to do it alone.
	132	1. I am pleased that Pepper reminded me to do the activity.
	133	1. I feel like completing the task was a good accomplishment.
	134	1. I feel like I accomplished it myself.
	135	1. I felt in control of what I had to do.
	136	1. I felt annoyed by Pepper.
	137	1. I felt frustrated by the task.
	138	1. I felt pressured by Pepper.
	139	1. Pepper cared about helping me.
	140	1. I would trust Pepper with more important activities.
39.1	141
	142	Research questions:
	143
94.1	144	1. To what extent did Pepper improve the task's experience? [Questions: 3,4,5,10,11,12]
41.1	145	1. To what extent did Pepper improve the participant's autonomy and perception of control? [Questions: 6, 8, 9]
40.1	146	1. To what extent did Pepper improve the participant's sense of accomplishment? [Questions: 7]
41.1	147	1. Did the participant perceive Pepper as a social agent? [Questions: 13, 14]
40.1	148	1. How was Pepper's ability to guide the participant through the task? [Questions: 4]
39.1	149
40.1	150	Question 1 is used to take into consideration the expected baseline enjoyment of the task for each participant.
	151
31.1	152	== Participants ==
	153
94.1	154	In our situation, our participants are 24 students from TUD. Most of them come from Computer Science and/or from the SCE class. One third of them are female and two thirds male, so gender balance is decent.
	155	Roleplaying PwDs may be difficult for students, especially for those who have not followed the course. For this reason, and in order not to introduce an extra bias "knows about dementia"/"does not know about dementia", we decided to ask the students to just act as students.
31.1	156
	157	== Experimental design ==
37.1	158
94.1	159	Since our evaluating process is relatively short, we use within-subject, which means each participant goes through all conditions. In this way, our experiment tends to have more statistical power and less variability.
31.1	160
	161	== Tasks ==
	162
94.1	163	All participants will go through our designed testing process, which combines a calendar event reminder and an activity breakdown.
	164	Pepper will propose the activity to the participant, then go step by step with them through the activity.
31.1	165
	166	== Measures ==
	167
94.1	168	We measure the mood of the participants through the affect assessment questionnaires. We also measure some aspects of the interaction between Pepper and the participant through the system assessment questionnaire. Both are qualitative data, as the participant gives an answer ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
31.1	169
	170	== Procedure ==
	171
94.1	172	Before the experiment, we explain to the participants the purpose of our evaluation (context of SCE class, our prototype).
	173	We tell them that we will gather data in the questionnaires, that the data are fully anonymized and will only be used for our result analysis in this course.
	174	We also briefly explain to them how Pepper works, especially that she only listens when the eyes are blue.
	175	After the explanation, the participant can fill the consent form and the first affect questionnaire.
	176	Then, the experiment starts. The experiment is conducted in autonomy between the participant and Pepper. We only intervene if asked by the participant or if something is going wrong with the experiment.
	177	After the activity is finished by the participant, they fill the second affect questionnaire and the system assessment questionnaire.
	178	After this is done, we thank them for their participation and the evaluation session is over.
31.1	179
	180	== Material ==
	181
94.1	182	1. Consent form. To protect the privacy of participants and ensure the evaluation process goes smoothly, we will ask participants to sign a consent form, indicating they are willing to take part in the evaluation and the data gathered from the experiment will be analyzed by researchers. The consent form is accessed online via a QR code.
	183	1. Questionnaires. There are three questionnaires to answer (mood 1, mood 2, system). They are also accessed online via a QR code.
37.2	184	1. Pepper robot. Our robot is programmed using Choregraphe. The robot will have the same behaviour for every participant. However, the input data will be entered by the HCP (and potentially the relatives).
94.1	185	1. Gardening stuff. In order to conduct the activity, we bought and brought basic stuff required for gardening (soil, pot, seeds, etc).
31.1	186
	187	== Results ==
	188
98.1	189	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.
67.1	190
98.1	191	=== Affect assessment ===
	192
100.1	193	[[Affect assessment, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/mood_questionnaire.html]]
67.1	194	[[image:mood.svg]]
101.1	195	{{html}}<!DOCTYPE html>
91.1	196	<html>
	197	<head>
	198	<style>
	199	table {
	200	font-family: arial, sans-serif;
	201	border-collapse: collapse;
	202	width: 100%;
	203	}
	204
	205	td, th {
	206	border: 1px solid #dddddd;
	207	text-align: left;
	208	padding: 8px;
	209	}
	210
	211	tr:nth-child(even) {
	212	background-color: #dddddd;
	213	}
	214	</style>
	215	</head>
	216	<body>
	217
	218	<h5>Wilcoxon Signed-rank test</h5>
98.1	219	<h6><i>H0</i>: The mood distribution before and after the interaction with Pepper is the same.</h6>
91.1	220
	221	<table>
	222	<tr>
	223	<th>test results </th>
	224	<th>I feel caring </th>
	225	<th>I feel content </th>
	226	<th>I feel calm </th>
	227	<th>I feel tired </th>
	228	<th>I feel sad </th>
	229	<th>I feel nervous </th>
	230	</tr>
	231	<tr>
	232	<th>p-value</th>
	233	<td>0.512</td>
	234	<td>0.0336 </td>
	235	<td>0.674</td>
	236	<td>0.00156</td>
	237	<td>0.372</td>
	238	<td>0.371</td>
	239	</tr>
	240	<tr>
	241	<th>statistics</th>
	242	<td>42.5</td>
	243	<td>12.5</td>
	244	<td>46</td>
	245	<td>8</td>
	246	<td>33</td>
	247	<td>24</td>
	248	</tr>
	249
	250	</table>
	251
	252	</body>
	253	</html>
	254	{{/html}}
	255
98.1	256	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.
	257	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.
93.1	258
92.1	259	{{html}}
	260	<!DOCTYPE html>
	261	<html>
	262	<head>
	263	<style>
	264	table {
	265	font-family: arial, sans-serif;
	266	border-collapse: collapse;
	267	width: 100%;
	268	}
91.1	269
92.1	270	td, th {
	271	border: 1px solid #dddddd;
	272	text-align: left;
	273	padding: 8px;
	274	}
91.1	275
92.1	276	tr:nth-child(even) {
	277	background-color: #dddddd;
	278	}
	279	</style>
	280	</head>
	281	<body>
	282
	283	<h5>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test</h5>
98.1	284	<h6><i>H0</i>: The mood distribution after the interaction with Pepper for people who like gardening and people who do not like gardening is the same.</h6>
92.1	285
	286	<table>
	287	<tr>
	288	<th>test results </th>
	289	<th>I feel caring </th>
	290	<th>I feel content </th>
	291	<th>I feel calm </th>
	292	<th>I feel tired </th>
	293	<th>I feel sad </th>
	294	<th>I feel nervous </th>
	295	</tr>
	296	<tr>
	297	<th>p-value</th>
	298	<td>0.907</td>
	299	<td>0.0883 </td>
	300	<td>0.786</td>
	301	<td>0.510</td>
	302	<td>0.969</td>
	303	<td>0.461</td>
	304	</tr>
	305	<tr>
	306	<th>statistics</th>
	307	<td>0.116</td>
	308	<td>1.704</td>
	309	<td>0.271</td>
	310	<td>-0.658</td>
	311	<td>-0.0387</td>
	312	<td>-0.735</td>
	313	</tr>
	314
	315	</table>
	316
	317	</body>
	318	</html>
	319
	320	{{/html}}
	321
98.1	322	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.
67.1	323
98.1	324
	325	=== System assessment ===
	326
100.1	327	[[System assessment, first subset of questions, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_1.html]]
67.1	328	[[image:group1.svg]]
101.1	329	{{html}}<!DOCTYPE html>
93.1	330	<html>
	331	<head>
	332	<style>
	333	table {
	334	font-family: arial, sans-serif;
	335	border-collapse: collapse;
	336	width: 100%;
	337	}
	338
	339	td, th {
	340	border: 1px solid #dddddd;
	341	text-align: left;
	342	padding: 8px;
	343	}
	344
	345	tr:nth-child(even) {
	346	background-color: #dddddd;
	347	}
	348	</style>
	349	</head>
	350	<body>
	351
98.1	352	<h5>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test</h5>
	353	<h6><i>H0</i>: The distribution of answers from people who like gardening and people who do not like gardening is the same.</h6>
93.1	354
	355	<table>
	356	<tr>
	357	<th>test results </th>
	358	<th>I would have known how to do the whole task without Pepper.</th>
	359	<th>I think Pepper made the task easier for me.</th>
	360	<th>I enjoyed the task more than if I had had to do it alone.</th>
	361	<th>Pepper was easy to understand.</th>
	362	<th>I am pleased that Pepper reminded me to do the activity.</th>
	363	</tr>
	364	<tr>
	365	<th>p-value</th>
	366	<td>0.759</td>
	367	<td>0.462</td>
	368	<td>0.668</td>
	369	<td>0.830</td>
	370	<td>0.927</td>
	371	</tr>
	372	<tr>
	373	<th>statistics</th>
	374	<td>-0.306</td>
	375	<td>-0.734</td>
	376	<td>-0.428</td>
	377	<td>-0.214</td>
	378	<td>-0.0918</td>
	379	</tr>
	380
	381	</table>
	382
	383	</body>
	384	</html>
	385	{{/html}}
	386
98.1	387	In this first system assessment graph, it is shown that participants slightly agree that Pepper made the task easier for them, and generally agree that she was easy to understand.
93.1	388
101.1	389
100.1	390	[[System assessment, second subset of questions, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_2.html]]
67.1	391	[[image:group2.svg]]
101.1	392	{{html}}<!DOCTYPE html>
93.1	393	<html>
	394	<head>
	395	<style>
	396	table {
	397	font-family: arial, sans-serif;
	398	border-collapse: collapse;
	399	width: 100%;
	400	}
	401
	402	td, th {
	403	border: 1px solid #dddddd;
	404	text-align: left;
	405	padding: 8px;
	406	}
	407
	408	tr:nth-child(even) {
	409	background-color: #dddddd;
	410	}
	411	</style>
	412	</head>
	413	<body>
	414
98.1	415	<h5>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test</h5>
	416	<h6><i>H0</i>: The distribution of answers from people who like gardening and people who do not like gardening is the same.</h6>
93.1	417
	418	<table>
	419	<tr>
	420	<th>test results </th>
	421	<th>I feel like completing the task was a good accomplishment.</th>
	422	<th>I feel like I accomplished it myself.</th>
	423	<th>I felt in control of what I had to do.</th>
	424	</tr>
	425	<tr>
	426	<th>p-value</th>
	427	<td>0.0982</td>
	428	<td>0.220</td>
	429	<td>0.581</td>
	430	</tr>
	431	<tr>
	432	<th>statistics</th>
	433	<td>-1.653</td>
	434	<td>-1.224</td>
	435	<td>0.551</td>
	436	</tr>
	437
	438	</table>
	439
	440	</body>
	441	</html>
	442	{{/html}}
	443
98.1	444	The sense of accomplishment is slightly higher for people who like gardening that for those who do not. It is globally around slightly agree.
	445	An interesting fact to notice is that participants who do not like gardening felt more in control of what they had to do.
	446
101.1	447
100.1	448	[[System assessment, third subset of questions, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_3.html]]
67.1	449	[[image:group3.svg]]
101.1	450	{{html}}<!DOCTYPE html>
93.1	451	<html>
	452	<head>
	453	<style>
	454	table {
	455	font-family: arial, sans-serif;
	456	border-collapse: collapse;
	457	width: 100%;
	458	}
	459
	460	td, th {
	461	border: 1px solid #dddddd;
	462	text-align: left;
	463	padding: 8px;
	464	}
	465
	466	tr:nth-child(even) {
	467	background-color: #dddddd;
	468	}
	469	</style>
	470	</head>
	471	<body>
	472
98.1	473	<h5>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test</h5>
	474	<h6><i>H0</i>: The distribution of answers from people who like gardening and people who do not like gardening is the same.</h6>
93.1	475
	476	<table>
	477	<tr>
	478	<th>test results </th>
	479	<th>I felt annoyed by Pepper.</th>
	480	<th>I felt frustrated by the task.</th>
	481	<th>I felt pressured by Pepper.</th>
	482	</tr>
	483	<tr>
	484	<th>p-value</th>
	485	<td>0.951</td>
	486	<td>0.358</td>
	487	<td>0.926</td>
	488	</tr>
	489	<tr>
	490	<th>statistics</th>
	491	<td>0.0612</td>
	492	<td>0.918</td>
	493	<td>-0.0918</td>
	494	</tr>
	495
	496	</table>
	497
	498	</body>
	499	</html>
	500	{{/html}}
	501
98.1	502	The participants globally disagree that the presence of Pepper annoyed, frustrated or pressured them. Those who like gardening actually had a bit more negative feelings regarding the presence of Pepper than those who dislike gardening.
	503
101.1	504
100.1	505	[[System assessment, fourth subset of questions, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_4.html]]
67.1	506	[[image:group4.svg]]
101.1	507	{{html}}<!DOCTYPE html>
93.1	508	<html>
	509	<head>
	510	<style>
	511	table {
	512	font-family: arial, sans-serif;
	513	border-collapse: collapse;
	514	width: 100%;
	515	}
	516
	517	td, th {
	518	border: 1px solid #dddddd;
	519	text-align: left;
	520	padding: 8px;
	521	}
	522
	523	tr:nth-child(even) {
	524	background-color: #dddddd;
	525	}
	526	</style>
	527	</head>
	528	<body>
	529
98.1	530	<h5>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test</h5>
	531	<h6><i>H0</i>: The distribution of answers from people who like gardening and people who do not like gardening is the same.</h6>
93.1	532
	533	<table>
	534	<tr>
	535	<th>test results </th>
	536	<th>Pepper cared about helping me.</th>
	537	<th>I would trust Pepper with more important activities.</th>
	538	</tr>
	539	<tr>
	540	<th>p-value</th>
	541	<td>0.854</td>
	542	<td>0.0297</td>
	543	</tr>
	544	<tr>
	545	<th>statistics</th>
	546	<td>0.183</td>
	547	<td>-2.173</td>
	548	</tr>
	549
	550	</table>
	551
	552	</body>
	553	</html>
	554	{{/html}}
	555
98.1	556	This graph shows that the trust in Pepper was highly dependent on whether the participants enjoyed the activity or not.
93.1	557
31.1	558	== Discussion ==
	559
	560	* Reliability: Yes. One could replicate the same experiment with other patients.
	561	* Validity: TBD.
	562	* Biases: TBD.
	563	* 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.
	564	* 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.
	565
	566	== Conclusions ==
97.1	567
	568	The results from the mood questionnaire seem to support our claims CL10: the PwD feels reassured and CL11: the PwD feels content.
	569	Although there are many potential biases, there seems to be a general trend which is that the mood of the participants slightly improved thanks to the activity.
	570
	571	All participants, except one who asked to leave the experiment early, finished the whole activity we had prepared for them during the session. This means the participants were able to perform activity steps told by Pepper. This supports our claim CL03: the PwD performs an activity step.
	572
	573	No participant failed to notice Pepper or did not hear what she was saying after the experiment had started. This supports our claim CL01: the PwD becomes aware of Pepper's presence.
	574
	575	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.
	576
	577	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.
98.1	578
	579	The results from the mood questionnaire seem to support our claims CL10: the PwD feels reassured and CL11: the PwD feels content.
	580	Although there are many potential biases, there seems to be a general trend which is that the mood of the participants slightly improved thanks to the activity.
	581
	582	All participants, except one who asked to leave the experiment early, finished the whole activity we had prepared for them during the session. This means the participants were able to perform activity steps told by Pepper. This supports our claim CL03: the PwD performs an activity step.
	583
	584	No participant failed to notice Pepper or did not hear what she was saying after the experiment had started. This supports our claim CL01: the PwD becomes aware of Pepper's presence.
	585
	586	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.
	587
	588	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.