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.DiederikHeijbroek

Content

...	...	@@ -1,29 +1,36 @@
	1	+== Overview ==
	2	+
1	1	To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for the PwD will be evaluated in a formative evaluation with the PwD 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.  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 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**.
	5	+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** relatedness** and **competence**.
4	4
5	5	==== ====
6	6
7		-== //**Study design claims**// ==
	9	+== Study Design Variables ==
8	8
9		-The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
	11	+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?
	13	+1. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state?
	14	+11. **Affect**. How do participants feel about using the NAO in this state?
	15	+11. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the NAO 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 NAO?
12	12
13		-2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state? Do PwDs //like// the system?
	20	+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.
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?
	22	+[[image:3\. Evaluation.b\. Test.WebHome@Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
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?
18	18
19		-5. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
	25	+== Surveys ==
20	20
	27	+Affect will be measured by the Self-Assessment Manikin [2] that takes less than a minute. It will be used for both pre-experiment and post-experiment evaluation. For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions. A well-suited tool for Memory self-efficacy is the mini-mental state examination [3]. We adopt it to fit to the ecological validity and domain of interest in our study.
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	23
24		-[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
	30	+== References ==
25	25
	32	+[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>>https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0_4]]
26	26
27		-== //**References**// ==
	34	+[2] Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. //Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry//, //25//(1), 49-59.
28	28
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
	36	+[3] Kurlowicz, L., & Wallace, M. (1999). The mini-mental state examination (MMSE). //Journal of gerontological nursing//, //25//(5), 8-9.