Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 3.3
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:31
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 23.2
edited by Mark Neerincx
on 2024/03/18 16:01
Change comment: Added comment

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
1 +xwiki:XWiki.MarkNeerincx
Content
... ... @@ -1,43 +1,25 @@
1 -To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for PwD will be evaluated in a formative evaluation with the PwD (subject) and their caregivers. The evaluation will investigate the process of how interaction with the NAO can alleviate potential symptoms caused by early-stage dementia in PwD.  The study will be conducted focused on the prototype's potential effects, which are based on desired values of self-direction, security and conformity.
1 +To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for the subject will be evaluated in a formative evaluation with the subject and their caregivers. The evaluation will investigate the process of how interaction with the NAO can alleviate potential symptoms caused by early-stage dementia in subjects.  Three methods of evaluation will be applied to have reliable and accurate results, as Bethel. et al (2020)[1] suggests.
2 2  
3 -The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
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 subject's attitude towards robots and the **autonomy, relatedness** and **competence**.
4 4  
5 -~1. Does the design increase the sense of autonomy in PwD?
5 +==== Study design claims ====
6 6  
7 -2. Does the design have a positive effect on PwD's emotional/affective state?
7 +The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
8 8  
9 -3. Is the design dependable; do PwD sense that they can rely on it?
9 +~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a subject?
10 10  
11 +2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the subject's //affective //state? Do subjects //like// the system?
11 11  
12 -**Positive effects:**
13 +3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the subject to rely on it? Does it feel natural?
13 13  
14 -**//Measuring sense of autonomy~://**
15 15  
16 -//Have the PwD rate themselves on a scale 1-5.//
16 +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 subject 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.
17 17  
18 -//Have the relatives rate the PwD on a scale 1-5.//
18 +[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
19 19  
20 -//Evaluate how often PwD asks for clarification in a conversation with relatives in #Questions asked.//
20 +/
21 21  
22 -**//Measuring the prevention of negative emotions such as stress~://**
23 23  
24 -//Have the PwD rate themselves on a scale 1-5.//
23 +== References ==
25 25  
26 -//How often a PwD has a stressed/upset moment according to NAO.//
27 -
28 -**//Measuring trust in the PwD~://**
29 -
30 -//How many times a relative calls PwD to check in.//
31 -
32 -
33 -**Negative effects:**
34 -
35 -**//Causing negative emotions with upsetting information~://**
36 -
37 -//Have the PwD rate themselves on a scale 1-5.//
38 -
39 -//How often a PwD has a stressed/upset moment according to NAO.//
40 -
41 -**//Overloading the PwD with information~://**
42 -
43 -//Percentage of information re-asked by the PwD.//
25 +[1] Bethel, C.L., Henkel, Z., Baugus, K. (2020). Conducting Studies in Human-Robot Interaction. In: Jost, C., //et al.// Human-Robot Interaction. Springer Series on Bio- and Neurosystems, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https:~/~/doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0_4
Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +897.4 KB
Content
XWiki.XWikiComments[0]
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.MarkNeerincx
Comment
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +It would be good to consider, some additional (specific) measures related to memory, like recall and (memory) self-efficacy.
Date
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2024-03-18 16:01:02.566