Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Summary

• Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Author

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

Content

...	...	@@ -2,8 +2,10 @@
2	2
3	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**.
4	4
5		-==== Study design claims ====
	5	+==== ====
6	6
	7	+== //**Study design claims**// ==
	8	+
7	7	The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
8	8
9	9	~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD?
...	...	@@ -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
	19	+5. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
17	17
	21	+
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]]