Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Demi Breen on 2023/04/09 15:10
From version 36.1
edited by Maya Elasmar
on 2023/04/01 12:26
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 43.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/04/03 17:52
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.MayaElasmar
1 +XWiki.hjpvandijk
Content
... ... @@ -2,6 +2,10 @@
2 2  
3 3  For our research, we are looking into the effect of either using goal-based motivation or emotion-based motivation in promoting PwD for physical activity. Two systems will thus be designed; one motivating using emotion-based explanations and the other using goal-based motivation. The product will motivate the PwD to go for a walk in the park stimulating the amount of physical activity. It has been shown that physical activity, an increase in emotional stability and more goal-based activities can increase the mental and physical health of the PwD. Since 70% of the PwD have a lack of motivation, apathy and lack of interest in activities this project could have a great influence on the lives of these people.
4 4  
5 +Thus our research question is:
6 +**What is the effect of goal-based and emotion-based explanations in prompting PwD for physical activity?**
7 +
8 +
5 5  The claims that need to be tested are thus:
6 6  
7 7  - The effect of emotion-based motivation; The PwD can comprehend the emotion that is being conveyed and in that way is motivated to contribute to the activity of walking in the garden.
... ... @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
56 56  
57 57  In an optimal scenario where we can test the robot on PwD. We would have measured the number of times a person went out. We would also have measured the effect of the goal and emotion-based motivation on the long-term over the people. Whether it will be less effective over time or not. We would also measure the emotional effect on the caregivers and the functional effect. By the functional effect, we mean whether they indeed have more time to do other tasks or not. It would also have been perfect if we could measure the effect of the walks on the PwD and their health.
58 58  
59 -The questionnaire for the feedback is in the attachment (Questionnaire (2)).
63 +The questionnaire for the feedback is in the attachment (Questionnaire (2)). The questionnaire is based on a questionnaire in the paper " Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit " [2]. There are also 5 question at the end that we added ourselves, because we think it fits our experiment.
60 60  
61 61  The questionnaire measures the experiment of the interaction of the students with the robot. By that we mean it measures:
62 62  
... ... @@ -112,11 +112,11 @@
112 112  
113 113  === Noteworthy answers ===
114 114  
115 -On average, participants only rejected the robot's persuasion attempts 0.5 times. The participants rated the robot a 2/5 in terms of being scary. They gave a 4/5 for it making life more interesting and it being good to make use of the robot. Questions related to the participant's enjoyment and fascination with the system and the robot were met with ratings between 3.8 and 4.1. The question "I think the staff would like me using the robot" was rated a 4/5 on average. Finally, to the question of whether they would not have gone for a walk if the robot didn't ask them to, the average answer was 3.8/5. All these answers had a standard deviation of less than 1.
119 +On average, participants only rejected the robot's persuasion attempts 0.5 times. The participants rated the robot a 2/5 in terms of being scary. They gave a 4/5 for it making life more interesting and it being good to make use of the robot. Questions related to the participant's enjoyment and fascination with the system and the robot were met with ratings between 3.8 and 4.1. The question "I think the staff would like me using the robot" was rated a 4/5 on average. A 2.3/5 was given to the statement "The robot insisted too much to go on a walk". Finally, to the question of whether they would not have gone for a walk if the robot didn't ask them to, the average answer was 3.8/5. All these answers had a standard deviation of less than 1.
116 116  
117 117  === ANOVA ===
118 118  
119 -Firstly, the Jarque-Bera test [2] was used to check for normality. When the answers to a question weren't normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U-Test [3] was used. For normally distributed answers, the T-Test [4] was used. These tests used the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the two groups. When the calculated probability value (p-value) is less than 0.05, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference between the two groups for the answers to that question.
123 +Firstly, the Jarque-Bera test [3] was used to check for normality. When the answers to a question weren't normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U-Test [4] was used. For normally distributed answers, the T-Test [5] was used. These tests used the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the two groups. When the calculated probability value (p-value) is less than 0.05, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference between the two groups for the answers to that question.
120 120  
121 121  Even though the average rejections were higher for emotion-based (0,875) than for goal-based(0,125). This difference was not significant.
122 122  
... ... @@ -177,16 +177,17 @@
177 177  
178 178  [1] Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. //Journal of Cognition//, //2//(1), 16. DOI: [[http:~~/~~/doi.org/10.5334/joc.72>>url:http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72]]
179 179  
180 -[2] Thorsten Thadewald and Herbert Büning. “Jarque–Bera test and its competitors for testing
184 +[2] M. Heerink, B. Kröse, V. Evers, and B. Wielinga, “Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit .” [Online]. Available: https:~/~/mheerink.home.xs4all.nl/pdf/HeerinkRo-man09.pdf.
185 +
186 +[3] Thorsten Thadewald and Herbert Büning. “Jarque–Bera test and its competitors for testing
181 181  normality–a power comparison”. In: Journal of applied statistics 34.1 (2007), pp. 87–105.
182 182  
183 -
184 -[3] Nadim Nachar et al. “The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two indepen-
189 +[4] Nadim Nachar et al. “The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two indepen-
185 185  dent samples come from the same distribution”. In: Tutorials in quantitative Methods for
186 186  Psychology 4.1 (2008), pp. 13–20.
187 187  
188 -
189 -[4] Tae Kyun Kim. “T test as a parametric statistic”. In: Korean journal of anesthesiology 68.6
193 +[5] Tae Kyun Kim. “T test as a parametric statistic”. In: Korean journal of anesthesiology 68.6
190 190  (2015), pp. 540–546.
191 191  
196 +
192 192