Project homeWiki source code of 3. Evaluation Methods
Version 22.1 by Rixt Hellinga on 2024/03/04 10:51
Hide last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
18.1 | 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. |
| |
3.2 | 2 | |
| |
22.1 | 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 subject's attitude towards robots and the **autonomy, relatedness** and **competence**. |
| |
18.1 | 4 | |
| |
4.4 | 5 | ==== Study design claims ==== |
| 6 | |||
| |
3.2 | 7 | The study will investigate the claims on the following questions: |
| 8 | |||
| |
15.1 | 9 | ~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a subject? |
| |
3.3 | 10 | |
| |
22.1 | 11 | 2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the subject's //affective //state? Do subjects //like// the system? |
| |
3.3 | 12 | |
| |
22.1 | 13 | 3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the subject to rely on it? Does it feel natural? |
| |
3.3 | 14 | |
| 15 | |||
| |
18.1 | 16 | 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. |
| |
5.1 | 17 | |
| |
3.12 | 18 | [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]] |
| |
3.7 | 19 | |
| |
9.1 | 20 | / |
| |
3.7 | 21 | |
| |
9.1 | 22 | |
| |
3.10 | 23 | == References == |
| 24 | |||
| |
3.9 | 25 | (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 |