Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 33.1
edited by William OGrady
on 2024/03/25 14:34
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 26.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/21 16:57
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.WilliamOGrady
1 +xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Content
... ... @@ -2,10 +2,8 @@
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 -==== ====
5 +==== Study design claims ====
6 6  
7 -== //**Study design claims**// ==
8 -
9 9  The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
10 10  
11 11  ~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD?
... ... @@ -12,11 +12,11 @@
12 12  
13 13  2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state? Do PwDs //like// the system?
14 14  
15 -3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the PwD to rely on it? Does it feel natural?
13 +3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the PwD to rely on it? Does it feel natural? Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot?
16 16  
17 -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?
15 +4. Recall.
18 18  
19 -5. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
17 +5. Memory self-efficacy.
20 20  
21 21  
22 22  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.
... ... @@ -24,6 +24,6 @@
24 24  [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
25 25  
26 26  
27 -== //**References**// ==
25 +== References ==
28 28  
29 29  [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
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