Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 29.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/21 17:05
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 30.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/21 17:06
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -14,7 +14,9 @@
14 14  
15 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. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
17 17  
19 +
18 18  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.
19 19  
20 20  [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]