Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods
Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 15.1
edited by Rixt Hellinga
on 2024/03/03 22:52
on 2024/03/03 22:52
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version 6.3
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:54
on 2024/03/01 02:54
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -xwiki:XWiki. RixtHellinga1 +xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit - Content
-
... ... @@ -1,24 +1,24 @@ 1 -To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for thesubjectwill 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 insubjects. 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**autonomy, relatedness**and**security**.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 sense of affect and autonomy. 2 2 3 3 ==== Study design claims ==== 4 4 5 5 The study will investigate the claims on the following questions: 6 6 7 -~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //ina subject?7 +~1. Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in PwD? 8 8 9 -2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affectthe subject's//affective //state?Do subjects //like// the system?9 +2. Does the design positively affect PwD's //affective //state? 10 10 11 -3. **Security. **Is the design //dependable//;isthedesign accessibleenoughforthesubjecttorely 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 -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.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. 15 15 16 +The evaluation methods will be self-assessment and task performance.For the self-assessment methods, a tool can only be included in the study when it is validated. 16 16 18 + 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