Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Demi Tao on 2023/04/10 10:13
From version 2.1
edited by Demi Tao
on 2023/03/24 12:08
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 5.1
edited by Arber Demi
on 2023/03/27 13:58
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.DemiTao
1 +XWiki.ArberDemi
Content
... ... @@ -2,7 +2,18 @@
2 2  
3 3  <include a short summary of the claims to be tested, i.e., the effects of the functions in a specfic use case>
4 4  
5 +<nothing on prototype yet, we really need to get that going, but assuming this information>
5 5  
7 +In the section [[a. Prototype>>3\. Evaluation.a\. Prototype.WebHome]] two versions of the robot were presented, one with voice functionality and one without.
8 +
9 +The main claims we are looking to test with this testing procedure are related to the functionality and usability of the robot.
10 +
11 +The participants will be other students taking the course. The participants will be placed in the shoes of a PwD and be tasked with completing several basic actions with the robot while impaired in several known ways to simulate the difficulties of a PwD.
12 +
13 +After the experiment, the participants will fill out a survey and be asked some more open ended questions with the purpose of understanding how the interaction with the robot went, and whether they have anything that they find concerning regarding the possible use of the system and its functions in a real life setting.
14 +
15 +On top of this, a short questionnaire will be sent to several care homes throughout the Netherlands in hopes to get a general idea whether the caretakers at the facilities think that the system would be a good fit for the proposed use case.
16 +
6 6  = 2. Method =
7 7  
8 8  The prototypes are evaluated in a simulated manner, with participants pretending to be PwDs and conducting in-person experiments.
... ... @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@
9 9  
10 10  == 2.1 Participants ==
11 11  
12 -All students in CS4235 Socio-Cognitive Engineering (2022-2023) in TU Delft are invited to test the robot. In the end, X students are presented.
23 +All students in CS4235 Socio-Cognitive Engineering (2022-2023) in TU Delft are invited to test the robot. In the end, 20 students are presented.
13 13  
14 14  == 2.2 Experimental design ==
15 15  
27 +<Here we can do between or within, doesn't really matter, depends on the number of people we evaluate on honestly because less people means that between subject results will be much more varied and therefore more stupid, not that they will make any sense anyway>
16 16  
17 17  == 2.3 Tasks ==
18 18  
... ... @@ -40,6 +40,8 @@
40 40  
41 41  * (((
42 42  Go to the Games section and check what is included there.
55 +
56 +<this might not be part of the experiment as it might not get implemented in time)
43 43  )))
44 44  
45 45  ==== Medicine reminders ====
... ... @@ -73,11 +73,27 @@
73 73  
74 74  == 2.4 Measures ==
75 75  
76 -Quantitative measures are used in a user evaluation.  If a respondent had a minimum total score of 60% or more, he or she was considered to be satisfied with the application.
90 +Quantitative measures are used in a user evaluation.
77 77  
78 -== 2.5 Procedure ==
92 +**Interpretation for user evaluation (?**
79 79  
94 +If a respondent had a minimum total score of 60% or more, he or she was considered to be satisfied with the application.
80 80  
96 +**Scoring SUS**
97 +
98 +* For odd items: subtract one from the user response.
99 +* For even-numbered items: subtract the user responses from 5
100 +* This scales all values from 0 to 4 (with four being the most positive response).
101 +* 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.
102 +
103 +**Interpreting Scores for SUS [[*>>https://measuringu.com/sus/]]**
104 +
105 +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.
106 +
107 +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.
108 +
109 +== 2.5 Procedure ==
110 +
81 81  The procedure was conducted as follows:
82 82  
83 83  1. Welcome participants and give an introduction.
... ... @@ -95,6 +95,8 @@
95 95  
96 96  == 2.6 Material ==
97 97  
128 +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.
129 +1. Pepper robot. <not sure how to elaborate on this>
98 98  
99 99  = 3. Results =
100 100  
XWiki.XWikiComments[2]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.MarkNeerincx
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,5 @@
1 +Refer explicitly to the claims in the specification section ("claims we are looking to test with this testing procedure are related to the functionality and usability" is far too general).
2 +
3 +It is a good start, but try to be more specific (based on this information, other researchers should be able to replicate the test. E.g., how many participants do you plan to include?
4 +
5 +Good that you think about how the participant can play-act as a PwD. Do not put it in footnotes, but make a concise paragraph of it (it is an important part of your test method).
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2023-03-26 16:49:48.530