Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 28.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/21 17:04
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 27.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/21 16:57
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
14 14  
15 15  4. **Recall**. Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot?
16 16  
17 -5. **Memory self-efficacy**.pre-study how good are participants at remembering information?
17 +5. Memory self-efficacy.
18 18  
19 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.
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