Skip to Content

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
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 40.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/04/01 13:00
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -19,18 +19,16 @@
19 19  
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 -[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(4).jpg]]
22 +[[image:3\. Evaluation.b\. Test.WebHome@Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
23 23  
24 24  
25 25  === Surveys ===
26 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 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 30  
31 31  For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions.
32 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.
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.
34 34  
35 35  
36 36  == //**References**// ==
... ... @@ -38,3 +38,5 @@
38 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 39  
40 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.
39 +
40 +[3] Kurlowicz, L., & Wallace, M. (1999). The mini-mental state examination (MMSE). //Journal of gerontological nursing//, //25//(5), 8-9.