Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 6.2
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:52
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 3.11
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:37
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
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.
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.  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.
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?
... ... @@ -11,14 +11,12 @@
11 11  3. Is the design //dependable//; do PwD sense that they can rely on it?
12 12  
13 13  
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.
12 +To
15 15  
16 -The evaluation methods will be self-assessment and task performance.For the self-assessment methods, a tool can only be included in the study when it is validated.
17 17  
18 -
19 -[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
20 -
21 -
22 22  == References ==
23 23  
24 24  (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
18 +
19 +
20 +
Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -897.4 KB
Content