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.WilliamOGrady

Content

...	...	@@ -1,40 +1,39 @@
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**.
	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** relatedness** and **competence**.
4	4
5	5	==== ====
6	6
7		-== //**Study design variables**// ==
	7	+== Study Design Variables ==
8	8
9	9	The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system:
10	10
11	11
12		-1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD?
13	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?
	13	+11. **Affect**. How do participants feel about using the NAO in this state?
	14	+11. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the NAO before the study?
16	16	1. **Competence. **Is the design //competent//; is the design capable enough for the PwD to rely on it?
17	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?
	17	+11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the NAO?
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]]
	21	+[[image:3\. Evaluation.b\. Test.WebHome@Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
23	23
24	24
25		-=== Surveys ===
	24	+== 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.
	30	+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		-== //**References**// ==
	33	+== References ==
37	37
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.
	38	+
	39	+[3] Kurlowicz, L., & Wallace, M. (1999). The mini-mental state examination (MMSE). //Journal of gerontological nursing//, //25//(5), 8-9.