Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 18.1
edited by Rixt Hellinga
on 2024/03/03 23:25
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 3.3
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:31
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.RixtHellinga
1 +xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Content
... ... @@ -1,29 +1,43 @@
1 -To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for the subject will be evaluated in a formative evaluation with the 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 subjects.  Three methods of evaluation will be applied to have reliable and accurate results, as Bethel. et al (2020)[1] suggests.
2 -Three of these methods could be the Wizard of Oz method, the Thinking out loud method, and the Cooperative Evaluation method. Each of which can be concluded with a self-assessment expressed in questions posed to the subjects. This combination of evaluation methods allows for the results to have an input from the subject as well as input from the experts method.
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.  The study will be conducted focused on the prototype's potential effects, which are based on desired values of self-direction, security and conformity.
3 3  
3 +The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
4 4  
5 -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**.
5 +~1. Does the design increase the sense of autonomy in PwD?
6 6  
7 -==== Study design claims ====
7 +2. Does the design have a positive effect on PwD's emotional/affective state?
8 8  
9 -The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
9 +3. Is the design dependable; do PwD sense that they can rely on it?
10 10  
11 -~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a subject?
12 12  
13 -2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the subject's //affective //state? Do subjects //like// the system?
12 +**Positive effects:**
14 14  
15 -NOTE: I feel that maybe the statement above is not really what relatedness means? I think it means feeling connectedness to their relatives
14 +**//Measuring sense of autonomy~://**
16 16  
17 -3. **Security. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the subject to rely on it? Does it feel natural?
16 +//Have the PwD rate themselves on a scale 1-5.//
18 18  
18 +//Have the relatives rate the PwD on a scale 1-5.//
19 19  
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 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.
20 +//Evaluate how often PwD asks for clarification in a conversation with relatives in #Questions asked.//
21 21  
22 -[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
22 +**//Measuring the prevention of negative emotions such as stress~://**
23 23  
24 -/
24 +//Have the PwD rate themselves on a scale 1-5.//
25 25  
26 +//How often a PwD has a stressed/upset moment according to NAO.//
26 26  
27 -== References ==
28 +**//Measuring trust in the PwD~://**
28 28  
29 -(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
30 +//How many times a relative calls PwD to check in.//
31 +
32 +
33 +**Negative effects:**
34 +
35 +**//Causing negative emotions with upsetting information~://**
36 +
37 +//Have the PwD rate themselves on a scale 1-5.//
38 +
39 +//How often a PwD has a stressed/upset moment according to NAO.//
40 +
41 +**//Overloading the PwD with information~://**
42 +
43 +//Percentage of information re-asked by the PwD.//
Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -897.4 KB
Content