Project homeWiki source code of 3. Evaluation Methods
Version 20.1 by Rixt Hellinga on 2024/03/03 23:28
Show last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | To ground the design rationale in practice, the prototype of the NAO for the subject will be evaluated in a formative evaluation with the 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 subjects. Three methods of evaluation will be applied to have reliable and accurate results, as Bethel. et al (2020)[1] suggests. | ||
| 2 | Three of these methods could be the Wizard of Oz method, the Thinking out loud method, and the Cooperative Evaluation method. Each of which can be concluded with a self-assessment expressed in questions posed to the subjects. This combination of evaluation methods allows for the results to have an input from the subject as well as input from the experts method. | ||
| 3 | |||
| 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 subject's attitude towards robots and the **autonomy, relatedness** and **security**. | ||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | ==== Study design claims ==== | ||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | The study will investigate the claims on the following questions: | ||
| 10 | |||
| 11 | ~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a subject? | ||
| 12 | |||
| 13 | 2. **Affinity. **Does the design positively affect the subject's //affective //state? Do subjects //like// the system? | ||
| 14 | |||
| 15 | 3. **Security. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the subject to rely on it? Does it feel natural? | ||
| 16 | |||
| 17 | |||
| 18 | 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. | ||
| 19 | |||
| 20 | [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]] | ||
| 21 | |||
| 22 | / | ||
| 23 | |||
| 24 | |||
| 25 | == References == | ||
| 26 | |||
| 27 | (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 |