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 43.1
edited by William OGrady
on 2024/04/04 14:08
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.WilliamOGrady
Content
... ... @@ -1,5 +3,3 @@
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 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**.
... ... @@ -6,16 +6,17 @@
6 6  
7 7  ==== ====
8 8  
9 -== Study Design Variables ==
7 +== //**Study design variables**// ==
10 10  
11 11  The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system:
12 12  
11 +
13 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?
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?
16 16  1. **Competence. **Is the design //competent//; is the design capable enough for the PwD to rely on it?
17 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?
17 +11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot?
19 19  
20 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.
21 21  
... ... @@ -22,13 +22,17 @@
22 22  [[image:3\. Evaluation.b\. Test.WebHome@Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
23 23  
24 24  
25 -== Surveys ==
24 +== //**Surveys**// ==
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.
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.
28 28  
28 +For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions.
29 29  
30 -== References ==
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.
31 31  
32 +
33 +== //**References**// ==
34 +
32 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 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.