Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 48.1
edited by William OGrady
on 2024/04/06 11:27
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 7.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:54
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.WilliamOGrady
1 +xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Content
... ... @@ -1,37 +1,24 @@
1 -== Overview ==
1 +To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for PwD will be evaluated in a formative evaluation with the PwD (subject) 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. 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 subject's attitude towards robots and the baseline sense of affect and autonomy.
2 2  
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 PwD.  Three methods of evaluation will be applied to have reliable and accurate results, as Bethel. et al (2020)[1] suggests.
3 +==== Study design claims ====
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 and the** relatedness** and **competence**.
5 +The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
6 6  
7 -==== ====
7 +~1. Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in PwD?
8 8  
9 -== Study Design Variables ==
9 +2. Does the design positively affect PwD's //affective //state?
10 10  
11 -The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system:
11 +3. Is the design //dependable//; do PwD sense that they can rely on it?
12 12  
13 13  
14 -1. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state?
15 -11. **Affect**. How do participants feel about using the NAO in this state?
16 -11. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the NAO before the study?
17 -1. **Competence. **Is the design //competent//; is the design capable enough for the PwD to rely on it?
18 -11. **Memory self-efficacy **(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information?
19 -11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the NAO?
14 +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 subject 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.
20 20  
21 -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.
16 +The evaluation methods will be self-assessment, which can only be included in the study when it is validated.
22 22  
23 -[[image:3\. Evaluation.b\. Test.WebHome@Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
24 24  
19 +[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
25 25  
26 -== Surveys ==
27 27  
28 -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.
29 -
30 -
31 31  == References ==
32 32  
33 -[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]]
34 -
35 -[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.
36 -
37 -[3] Kurlowicz, L., & Wallace, M. (1999). The mini-mental state examination (MMSE). //Journal of gerontological nursing//, //25//(5), 8-9.
24 +(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(2).jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2.1 MB
Content
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
XWiki.XWikiComments[0]
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.MarkNeerincx
Comment
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -It would be good to consider, some additional (specific) measures related to memory, like recall and (memory) self-efficacy.
Date
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2024-03-18 16:01:02.566
XWiki.XWikiComments[1]
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Comment
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Thank you for this valuable suggestion, we adjusted our study design based on it already. Now, would you say that 4-5 dependent variables is too much to evaluate in our study or will it suffice within the time? For example Affect can be measured with a button ([[http:~~/~~/ii.tudelft.nl/~~~~joostb/affectbutton_version2_original.html>>http://ii.tudelft.nl/~~joostb/affectbutton_version2_original.html]]) that takes less than a minute, but the other variables will add up some time.
Date
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2024-03-21 17:03:29.591
Reply To
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -0