Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods
Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 27.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/21 16:57
on 2024/03/21 16:57
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. jeanpaulsmit1 +xwiki:XWiki.MarkNeerincx - Content
-
... ... @@ -1,27 +1,25 @@ 1 -To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for the PwDwill be evaluated in a formative evaluation with thePwDand their caregivers. The evaluation will investigate the process of how interaction with the NAO can alleviate potential symptoms caused by early-stage dementia inPwD. Three methods of evaluation will be applied to have reliable and accurate results, as Bethel. et al (2020)[1] suggests.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 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**.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 subject's attitude towards robots and the **autonomy, relatedness** and **competence**. 4 4 5 5 ==== Study design claims ==== 6 6 7 7 The study will investigate the claims on the following questions: 8 8 9 -~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD?9 +~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a subject? 10 10 11 -2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state? DoPwDs //like// the system?11 +2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the subject's //affective //state? Do subjects //like// the system? 12 12 13 -3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the PwDto rely on it? Does it feel natural?13 +3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the subject to rely on it? Does it feel natural? 14 14 15 -4. **Recall**. Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot? 16 16 17 - 5.Memory self-efficacy.16 +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. 18 18 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 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 - 22 22 [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]] 23 23 20 +/ 24 24 22 + 25 25 == References == 26 26 27 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