Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,20 +1,21 @@
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.
	1	+== Overview ==
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** relatedness** and **competence**.
	3	+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 PwDs. Three methods of evaluation will be applied to have reliable and accurate results, as Bethel. et al (2020)[1] suggests.
4	4
	5	+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. This is done through our pre- and post-study evaluation.
	6	+
5	5	==== ====
6	6
7		-== //**Study design variables**// ==
	9	+== Study Design Variables ==
8	8
9	9	The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system:
10	10
11		-
12	12	1. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state?
13		-11. **Affect**. How do participants feel about using the robot in this state?
14		-11. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
	14	+11. **Affect**. How do participants feel about using the NAO in this state?
	15	+11. **Attitude towards Technology**. What do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the NAO before the study?
15	15	1. **Competence. **Is the design //competent//; is the design capable enough for the PwD to rely on it?
16	16	11. **Memory self-efficacy **(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information?
17		-11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot?
	18	+11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the NAO?
18	18
19	19	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.
20	20
...	...	@@ -21,17 +21,13 @@
21	21	[[image:3\. Evaluation.b\. Test.WebHome@Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
22	22
23	23
24		-== //**Surveys**// ==
	25	+== Surveys ==
25	25
26		-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.
	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. For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions. 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.
27	27
28		-For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions.
29	29
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.
	30	+== References ==
31	31
32		-
33		-== //**References**// ==
34		-
35	35	[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]]
36	36
37	37	[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.