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
on 2024/03/01 11:35
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version 5.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:43
on 2024/03/01 02:43
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 **relatedness **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-study sense ofaffect and autonomyshould beexaminedand evaluated assuch. Anotherconfoundervariableto look into is the study locationandenvironment. The evaluationmethod will be self-assessment, which can onlybe included in the study when it is validated.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. 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