Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
17	17	11. **Memory self-efficacy **(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information?
18	18	11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot?
19	19
20		-
21	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.
22	22
23	23	[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(4).jpg]]
...	...	@@ -25,15 +25,17 @@
25	25
26	26	=== Surveys ===
27	27
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.
	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.
29	29
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.
31		-
32	32	For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions.
33	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.
	31	+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.
35	35
36	36
37	37	== //**References**// ==
38	38
39		-[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	+[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]]
	37	+
	38	+[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.
	39	+
	40	+[3] Kurlowicz, L., & Wallace, M. (1999). The mini-mental state examination (MMSE). //Journal of gerontological nursing//, //25//(5), 8-9.