Skip to Content

Changes for page 4. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by Demi Breen on 2023/04/09 14:54
From version 6.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/04/06 19:02
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 8.1
edited by Demi Breen
on 2023/04/09 14:54
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.hjpvandijk
1 +XWiki.Demibreen1000
Content
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,8 @@
1 -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]
1 +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 the 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]
2 2  
3 -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].
3 +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]. 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. [8] proposes the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), a non-verbal assessment based on pictures used to measure pleasure, arousal, and dominance as a reaction to some form of stimulation. Finally, [9] explains the AffectButton, an interface component that lets users enter the most appropriate expression by moving their mouse to the proper location.
4 4  
5 -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.
6 6  
7 -
8 8  === References ===
9 9  
10 10  [1] Greenwald, A. G. (1976). Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use?. //Psychological Bulletin//, //83//(2), 314.
... ... @@ -18,3 +18,7 @@
18 18  [6] Bartneck, C. (2023). Godspeed Questionnaire Series: Translations and Usage.
19 19  
20 20  [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.
19 +
20 +[8] Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. //Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry//, //25//(1), 49-59.
21 +
22 +[9] Broekens, J., & Brinkman, W. P. (2013). AffectButton: A method for reliable and valid affective self-report. //International Journal of Human-Computer Studies//, //71//(6), 641-667.