Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 40.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/04/01 13:00
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 41.1
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
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
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  
... ... @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
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 14  11. **Affect**. How do participants feel about using the robot in this state?
15 15  11. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?