Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 11.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 11:35
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 30.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/21 17:06
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,24 +1,27 @@
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-direction. Before the study, possible confounding variables need to be examined such as the subject's attitude towards robots and the baseline **relatedness **and **autonomy**.
1 +To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for the PwD will be evaluated in a formative evaluation with the PwD 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.
2 2  
3 +The study will focus on the prototype's potential effects, which are based on the desired value of autonomy as a part of self-direction. Before the study, possible confounding variables need to be examined such as the PwD's attitude towards robots and the **autonomy, relatedness** and **competence**.
4 +
3 3  ==== Study design claims ====
4 4  
5 5  The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
6 6  
7 -~1. Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in PwD?
9 +~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD?
8 8  
9 -2. Does the design positively affect PwD's //affective //state?
11 +2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state? Do PwDs //like// the system?
10 10  
11 -3. Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for PwD to rely on it? Does it feel natural?
13 +3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the PwD to rely on it? Does it feel natural?
12 12  
15 +4. **Memory self-efficacy** and **Recall**.(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information? (post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot?
13 13  
14 -For a sample size as small as 20 participants, it is most adequate to apply a within-subjects design (they require fewer participants)[1]. That means there is an approach where every subject is experiencing all of the conditions examined. A within-subjects design might be prone to confounds such as pre-existing notions in the environment. That is why the attitude towards robots and the pre-study sense of affect and autonomy should be examined and evaluated as such. Another confounder variable to look into is the study location and environment. The evaluation method will be self-assessment, which can only be included in the study when it is validated.
17 +5. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
15 15  
16 16  
20 +For a sample size as small as 20 participants, it is most adequate to apply a within-subjects design (they require fewer participants) [1]. That means there is an approach where every PwD is experiencing all of the conditions examined. A within-subjects design might be prone to confounds such as pre-existing notions in the environment. That is why the attitude towards robots and the pre-study sense of affect and autonomy should be examined and evaluated as such. Another confounder variable to look into is the study location and environment.
21 +
17 17  [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
18 18  
19 -/
20 20  
21 -
22 22  == References ==
23 23  
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
27 +[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
XWiki.XWikiComments[0]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.MarkNeerincx
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +It would be good to consider, some additional (specific) measures related to memory, like recall and (memory) self-efficacy.
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2024-03-18 16:01:02.566
XWiki.XWikiComments[1]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Thank you for this valuable suggestion, we adjusted our study design based on it already. Now, would you say that 4-5 dependent variables is too much to evaluate in our study or will it suffice within the time? For example Affect can be measured with a button ([[http:~~/~~/ii.tudelft.nl/~~~~joostb/affectbutton_version2_original.html>>http://ii.tudelft.nl/~~joostb/affectbutton_version2_original.html]]) that takes less than a minute, but the other variables will add up some time.
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2024-03-21 17:03:29.591
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +0