Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods
Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 38.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/27 17:58
on 2024/03/27 17:58
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version 37.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/26 11:59
on 2024/03/26 11:59
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Content
-
... ... @@ -17,24 +17,13 @@ 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 + 20 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. 21 21 22 22 [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(4).jpg]] 23 23 24 24 25 -=== Surveys === 26 - 27 -For autonomy, a validated survey tool is the self-care score as used in the Diabetes research paper of PAL by Neerincx et al. 28 - 29 -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. 30 - 31 -For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions. 32 - 33 -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. 34 - 35 - 36 36 == //**References**// == 37 37 38 -[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]] 39 - 40 -[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. 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