Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Demi Tao on 2023/04/10 10:13
From version 18.1
edited by Demi Tao
on 2023/04/08 01:17
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 18.3
edited by Demi Tao
on 2023/04/08 01:18
Change comment: Deleted object

Summary

Details

XWiki.XWikiComments[1]
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Anonymous
Comment
... ... @@ -1,40 +1,0 @@
1 -Quintana et al. (2020) designed questions based on the most important quality attributes to evaluate how the application works for people with mild cognitive impairment.
2 -
3 -(potential questions tailored to our case)
4 -
5 -* (((
6 -How satisfied are you with the robot’s possibility to support you?
7 -)))
8 -* (((
9 -How well does the robot fulfill your expectations?
10 -)))
11 -* (((
12 -Imagine a perfect robot for this task. How far away from it is the robot you are using today?
13 -)))
14 -* (((
15 -I find the robot easily accessible for people with dementia.
16 -)))
17 -* (((
18 -I feel that I can trust the robot and that it is safe to use.
19 -)))
20 -* (((
21 -I find it easy to understand how to operate the robot.
22 -)))
23 -* (((
24 -I am able to understand all the information presented by the robot.
25 -)))
26 -* (((
27 -I feel that the robot gave me better control over my daily situation.
28 -)))
29 -
30 -The alternatives the users could give to all the above were the following: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree.; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree.
31 -
32 -
33 -The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a dependable instrument for testing usability. It comprises of 10 questions with five response options which range from strongly agree to strongly disagree for responders (Jordan et al., 1996).
34 -
35 -(see the attachment for the 10 questions)
36 -
37 -
38 -1. Quintana M, Anderberg P, Sanmartin Berglund J, Frögren J, Cano N, Cellek S, Zhang J, Garolera M. Feasibility-Usability Study of a Tablet App Adapted Specifically for Persons with Cognitive Impairment—SMART4MD (Support Monitoring and Reminder Technology for Mild Dementia). //International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health//. 2020; 17(18):6816. [[https:~~/~~/doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186816>>https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186816]]
39 -
40 -2. Brooke, J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. //Usability Eval. Ind. **1996**, 189//, 4–7.
Date
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2023-03-24 11:18:20.296
XWiki.XWikiComments[6]
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.DemiTao
Comment
... ... @@ -1,16 +1,0 @@
1 -**Interpretation for user evaluation **
2 -
3 -If a respondent had a minimum total score of 60% (15 out of 25 for the matrix question) or more, he or she was considered to be satisfied with the application.
4 -
5 -**Scoring SUS**
6 -
7 -* For odd items: subtract one from the user response.
8 -* For even-numbered items: subtract the user responses from 5
9 -* This scales all values from 0 to 4 (with four being the most positive response).
10 -* Add up the converted responses for each user and multiply that total by 2.5. This converts the range of possible values from 0 to 100 instead of from 0 to 40.
11 -
12 -**Interpreting Scores for SUS [[*>>https://measuringu.com/sus/]]**
13 -
14 -Interpreting scoring can be complex. The participant’s scores for each question are converted to a new number, added together and then multiplied by 2.5 to convert the original scores of 0-40 to 0-100.  Though the scores are 0-100, these are not percentages and should be considered only in terms of their percentile ranking.
15 -
16 -Based on research, a SUS score above a 68 would be considered above average and anything below 68 is below average, however, the best way to interpret your results involves “normalizing” the scores to produce a percentile ranking.
Date
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2023-04-07 17:01:06.25