Changes for page b. Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-XWiki.MayaElasmar
	1	+XWiki.hjpvandijk

Content

...	...	@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
60	60
61	61	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.
62	62
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 " [5]. There are also 5 question at the end that we added ourselves, because we think it fits our experiment.
	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.
64	64
65	65	The questionnaire measures the experiment of the interaction of the students with the robot. By that we mean it measures:
66	66
...	...	@@ -116,11 +116,11 @@
116	116
117	117	=== Noteworthy answers ===
118	118
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. 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.
120	120
121	121	=== ANOVA ===
122	122
123		-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.
124	124
125	125	Even though the average rejections were higher for emotion-based (0,875) than for goal-based(0,125). This difference was not significant.
126	126
...	...	@@ -181,16 +181,17 @@
181	181
182	182	[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]]
183	183
184		-[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
185	185	normality–a power comparison”. In: Journal of applied statistics 34.1 (2007), pp. 87–105.
186	186
187		-[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-
188	188	dent samples come from the same distribution”. In: Tutorials in quantitative Methods for
189	189	Psychology 4.1 (2008), pp. 13–20.
190	190
191		-[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
192	192	(2015), pp. 540–546.
193	193
194		-[5] 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. [Accessed: 03-Apr-2023].
195	195
196	196