Skip to Content

Changes for page 4. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by Demi Breen on 2023/04/09 14:54
From version 4.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/04/06 18:39
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 3.3
edited by Mark Neerincx
on 2023/03/23 10:13
Change comment: Edited comment

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.hjpvandijk
1 +xwiki:XWiki.MarkNeerincx
Content
... ... @@ -19,20 +19,3 @@
19 19  
20 20  
21 21  All participants of the evaluation will be part of the course. So they will all be familiar with the robot in question. They will all be students at the TU Delft aged 20-25.
22 -
23 -
24 -=== Final text ===
25 -
26 -
27 -A within-subject designed experiment is when each participant is exposed to more than one experiment under testing. A between-subject design is when participants only do one experiment [1]. With within-subject design, a risk is the so-called 'demand effect', which entails that they might expect the researchers to want certain results, and will then act as such. Another thing that might happen with within-subject design is that participants might experience a learning effect, i.e. learning from the first experiment. [2]
28 -
29 -
30 -A useful questionnaire is [3], which asks questions regarding the interaction with the robot and its perceives usefulness.
31 -
32 -
33 -=== References ===
34 -
35 -[1] Greenwald, A. G. (1976). Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use?. //Psychological Bulletin//, //83//(2), 314.
36 -[2] Seltman, H. J. (2012). Experimental design and analysis (pp. 340)
37 -
38 -[3] Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2009, September). Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. In RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 528-533). IEEE.