Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 50.1
edited by Rixt Hellinga
on 2024/04/08 15:51
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 36.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/26 11:51
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.RixtHellinga
1 +xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Content
... ... @@ -1,36 +3,29 @@
1 -== Overview ==
2 -
3 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.
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**.
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**.
6 6  
7 7  ==== ====
8 8  
9 -== Study Design Variables ==
7 +== //**Study design claims**// ==
10 10  
11 -The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system:
9 +The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
12 12  
13 -1. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state?
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?
16 -1. **Competence. **Is the design //competent//; is the design capable enough for the PwD to rely on it?
17 -11. **Memory self-efficacy **(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information?
18 -11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the NAO?
11 +~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD?
19 19  
20 -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.
13 +2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state? Do PwDs //like// the system?
21 21  
22 -[[image:3\. Evaluation.b\. Test.WebHome@Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
15 +3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the PwD to rely on it? Does it feel natural?
23 23  
17 +4. **Memory self-efficacy** and **Recall **(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information? (post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot?
24 24  
25 -== Surveys ==
19 +5. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
26 26  
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.
28 28  
22 +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. Another confounder variable to look into is the study location and environment.
29 29  
30 -== References ==
24 +[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
31 31  
32 -[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]]
33 33  
34 -[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.
27 +== //**References**// ==
35 35  
36 -[3] Kurlowicz, L., & Wallace, M. (1999). The mini-mental state examination (MMSE). //Journal of gerontological nursing//, //25//(5), 8-9.
29 +[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