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 29.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/21 17:05
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -12,11 +12,9 @@
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?
15 +4. **Memory self-efficacy** and **Recall**.(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information? (post-study) 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?
18 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]]