Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods
Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 10.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 11:19
on 2024/03/01 11:19
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version 5.2
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:44
on 2024/03/01 02:44
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Content
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ 1 -To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for PwD will be evaluated in a formative evaluation with the PwD (subject) and their caregivers. The evaluation will investigate the process of how interaction with the NAO can alleviate potential symptoms caused by early-stage dementia in PwD. Three methods of evaluation will be applied to have reliable and accurate results, as Bethel. et al (2020)[1] suggests. The study will focus on the prototype's potential effects, which are based on the desired value of autonomy as a part of self-directio n. Before the study, possible confounding variables need to be examined such as the subject's attitude towards robots and the baseline sense of affect and autonomy.1 +To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for PwD will be evaluated in a formative evaluation with the PwD (subject) and their caregivers. The evaluation will investigate the process of how interaction with the NAO can alleviate potential symptoms caused by early-stage dementia in PwD. Three methods of evaluation will be applied to have reliable and accurate results, as Bethel. et al (2020)[1] suggests. The study will focus on the prototype's potential effects, which are based on the desired value of autonomy as a part of self-directio 2 2 3 3 ==== Study design claims ==== 4 4 ... ... @@ -8,17 +8,15 @@ 8 8 9 9 2. Does the design positively affect PwD's //affective //state? 10 10 11 -3. Is the design //dependable//; isthedesign accessibleenoughfor PwDtorely on it?Does it feel natural?11 +3. Is the design //dependable//; do PwD sense that they can rely on it? 12 12 13 13 14 - Fora samplesizeassmall as 20 participants,it is most adequatetoapply a within-subjectsdesign(they require fewer participants)[1]. That meansthere is anapproach whereevery subjectis experiencing alloftheconditionsexamined.A within-subjects design mightbe prone to confounds suchaspre-existing notions in the environment. That iswhy theattitude towards robots and thepre-studysense of affect and autonomyshouldbeexaminedandevaluatedassuch.Another confounder variabletolookintoisthestudylocation andenvironment. The evaluation methodwillbe self-assessment,whichcan only beincluded in thestudy when itisvalidated.14 +Before the study, possible confounding variables need to be examined such as the subject's attitude towards robots and the baseline sense of affect and autonomy. For a sample size as small as 20 participants, it is most adequate to apply a within-subjects design[1]. 15 15 16 16 17 17 [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]] 18 18 19 -/ 20 20 21 - 22 22 == References == 23 23 24 24 (1) Bethel, C.L., Henkel, Z., Baugus, K. (2020). Conducting Studies in Human-Robot Interaction. In: Jost, C., //et al.// Human-Robot Interaction. Springer Series on Bio- and Neurosystems, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https:~/~/doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0_4