Skip to Content

Changes for page 3. Evaluation Methods

Last modified by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:22
From version 8.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:55
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 5.2
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/03/01 02:44
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-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.  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
2 2  
3 3  ==== Study design claims ====
4 4  
... ... @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
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. Another confounder variable to look into is the study location and environment. The evaluation method will be self-assessment, which can only be included in the study when it is validated.
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].
15 15  
16 16  
17 17  [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]