Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1		-== Overview ==
	1	+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.
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 PwDs. 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.
	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** relatedness** and **competence**.
4	4
5	5	==== ====
6	6
...	...	@@ -8,9 +8,10 @@
8	8
9	9	The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system:
10	10
	11	+
11	11	1. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state?
12	12	11. **Affect**. How do participants feel about using the NAO in this state?
13		-11. **Attitude towards Technology**. What do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the NAO before the study?
	14	+11. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the NAO before the study?
14	14	1. **Competence. **Is the design //competent//; is the design capable enough for the PwD to rely on it?
15	15	11. **Memory self-efficacy **(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information?
16	16	11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the NAO?
...	...	@@ -22,9 +22,13 @@
22	22
23	23	== Surveys ==
24	24
25		-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.
26	26
	28	+For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions.
27	27
	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	+
	32	+
28	28	== References ==
29	29
30	30	[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]]