Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -4,26 +4,36 @@
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?
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?
	21	+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?
	23	+[[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.
	26	+=== Surveys ===
23	23
24		-[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
	28	+For autonomy, a validated survey tool is the self-care score as used in the Diabetes research paper of PAL by Neerincx et al.
25	25
	30	+Affect can be measured with a button ([[http:~~/~~/ii.tudelft.nl/~~~~joostb/affectbutton_version2_original.html>>url:http://ii.tudelft.nl/~~joostb/affectbutton_version2_original.html]]) that takes less than a minute. It will be used for both pre-experiment and post-experiment evaluation.
26	26
	32	+For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions.
	33	+
	34	+A well-suited tool for Memory self-efficacy is the Rivermead behavioural memory test [reference]. We adopt it to fit to the ecological validity and domain of interest in our study.
	35	+
	36	+
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