Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Summary

• Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • XWiki.XWikiComments[1]

Details

Page properties

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
	1	+xwiki:XWiki.RixtHellinga

Content

...	...	@@ -12,11 +12,7 @@
12	12
13	13	3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the PwD 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.
18		-
19		-
20	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	21
22	22	[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]

XWiki.XWikiComments[1]

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit

Comment

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
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

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2024-03-21 17:03:29.591

Reply To

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-0