Skip to Content

Changes for page 4. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by Demi Breen on 2023/04/09 14:54
From version 5.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/04/06 19:01
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 4.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/04/06 18:39
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -27,22 +27,12 @@
27 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 28  
29 29  
30 -Quite some established questionnaires exist regarding human-robot interaction. However, most are more about the usability of a system where the user has a specific goal. Examples of these questionnaires are SASSI [3], SUS [4], and APA [5].
30 +A useful questionnaire is [3], which asks questions regarding the interaction with the robot and its perceives usefulness.
31 31  
32 32  
33 -Questionnaires also concerning the robot's perceived likeability and general interaction are GodSpeed [6] and a questionnaire proposed by Herink et al. [7], where the latter is more elaborate.
34 -
35 -
36 36  === References ===
37 37  
38 38  [1] Greenwald, A. G. (1976). Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use?. //Psychological Bulletin//, //83//(2), 314.
39 39  [2] Seltman, H. J. (2012). Experimental design and analysis (pp. 340)
40 40  
41 -[3] Hone, K. S., & Graham, R. (2000). Towards a tool for the subjective assessment of speech system interfaces (SASSI). //Natural Language Engineering//, //6//(3-4), 287-303.
42 -
43 -[4] Lewis, J. R. (2018). The system usability scale: past, present, and future. //International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction//, //34//(7), 577-590.
44 -[5] Fitrianie, S., Bruijnes, M., Li, F., Abdulrahman, A., & Brinkman, W. P. (2022, September). The artificial-social-agent questionnaire: establishing the long and short questionnaire versions. In //Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents// (pp. 1-8).
45 -
46 -[6] Bartneck, C. (2023). Godspeed Questionnaire Series: Translations and Usage.
47 -
48 -[7] 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.
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.