Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 35.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/26 11:43
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 37.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/26 11:59
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -4,26 +4,26 @@
4 4  
5 5  ==== ====
6 6  
7 -== //**Study design claims**// ==
7 +== //**Study design variables**// ==
8 8  
9 -The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
9 +The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system:
10 10  
11 -~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD?
12 12  
13 -2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state? Do PwDs //like// the system?
12 +1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD?
13 +1. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state?
14 +11. **Affect**. How do participants feel about using the robot in this state?
15 +11. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
16 +1. **Competence. **Is the design //competent//; is the design capable enough for the PwD to rely on it?
17 +11. **Memory self-efficacy **(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information?
18 +11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot?
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?
20 +
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?
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.
18 18  
19 -5. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
24 +[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(4).jpg]]
20 20  
21 21  
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.
23 -
24 -[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
25 -
26 -
27 27  == //**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
Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(4).jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2.2 MB
Content