Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 37.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/26 11:59
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 3.2
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:29
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,29 +1,36 @@
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.
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.
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**.
3 +The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
4 4  
5 -==== ====
5 +**Positive effects:**
6 6  
7 -== //**Study design variables**// ==
7 +**//Measuring sense of autonomy~://**
8 8  
9 -The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system:
9 +//Have the PwD rate themselves on a scale 1-5.//
10 10  
11 +//Have the relatives rate the PwD on a scale 1-5.//
11 11  
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?
13 +//Evaluate how often PwD asks for clarification in a conversation with relatives in #Questions asked.//
19 19  
20 -
15 +**//Measuring the prevention of negative emotions such as stress~://**
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.
17 +//Have the PwD rate themselves on a scale 1-5.//
23 23  
24 -[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(4).jpg]]
19 +//How often a PwD has a stressed/upset moment according to NAO.//
25 25  
21 +**//Measuring trust in the PwD~://**
26 26  
27 -== //**References**// ==
23 +//How many times a relative calls PwD to check in.//
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
25 +
26 +**Negative effects:**
27 +
28 +**//Causing negative emotions with upsetting information~://**
29 +
30 +//Have the PwD rate themselves on a scale 1-5.//
31 +
32 +//How often a PwD has a stressed/upset moment according to NAO.//
33 +
34 +**//Overloading the PwD with information~://**
35 +
36 +//Percentage of information re-asked by the PwD.//
Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(2).jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2.1 MB
Content
Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(4).jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2.2 MB
Content
Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -897.4 KB
Content
XWiki.XWikiComments[0]
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.MarkNeerincx
Comment
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -It would be good to consider, some additional (specific) measures related to memory, like recall and (memory) self-efficacy.
Date
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2024-03-18 16:01:02.566
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