Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 39.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/27 18:02
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 35.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/26 11:43
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -4,37 +4,26 @@
4 4  
5 5  ==== ====
6 6  
7 -== //**Study design variables**// ==
7 +== //**Study design claims**// ==
8 8  
9 -The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system:
9 +The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
10 10  
11 +~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD?
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 +2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state? Do PwDs //like// the system?
19 19  
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.
15 +3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the PwD to rely on it? Does it feel natural?
21 21  
22 -[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(4).jpg]]
17 +4. **Memory self-efficacy** and **Recall **(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information? (post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot?
23 23  
19 +5. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
24 24  
25 -=== Surveys ===
26 26  
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.
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. Another confounder variable to look into is the study location and environment.
28 28  
29 -For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions.
24 +[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
30 30  
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.
32 32  
33 -
34 34  == //**References**// ==
35 35  
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.
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
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