Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 5.2
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:44
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 4.3
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:41
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
1 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-directio
2 2  
3 -==== Study design claims ====
4 -
5 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?
... ... @@ -11,9 +11,6 @@
11 11  3. Is the design //dependable//; do PwD sense that they can rely on it?
12 12  
13 13  
14 -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. For a sample size as small as 20 participants, it is most adequate to apply a within-subjects design[1].
15 -
16 -
17 17  [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
18 18  
19 19