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 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
Content
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
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
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 3  ==== Study design claims ====
4 4  
... ... @@ -11,9 +11,11 @@
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].
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.
15 15  
16 +The evaluation methods will be self-assessment, which can only be included in the study when it is validated.
16 16  
18 +
17 17  [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
18 18  
19 19