Changes for page 4. Evaluation Methods

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
1	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]
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]. 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.
	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].
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.
5	5
	7	+
6	6	=== References ===
7	7
8	8	[1] Greenwald, A. G. (1976). Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use?. //Psychological Bulletin//, //83//(2), 314.
...	...	@@ -16,7 +16,3 @@
16	16	[6] Bartneck, C. (2023). Godspeed Questionnaire Series: Translations and Usage.
17	17
18	18	[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.