Project homeWiki source code of 3. Evaluation Methods
Version 27.2 by Jean-Paul Smit on 2024/03/21 17:03
Show last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |||
| 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 **autonomy, relatedness** and **competence**. | ||
| 4 | |||
| 5 | ==== Study design claims ==== | ||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | The study will investigate the claims on the following questions: | ||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | ~1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD? | ||
| 10 | |||
| 11 | 2. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state? Do PwDs //like// the system? | ||
| 12 | |||
| 13 | 3. **Competence. **Is the design //dependable//; is the design accessible enough for the PwD to rely on it? Does it feel natural? | ||
| 14 | |||
| 15 | 4. **Recall**. Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot? | ||
| 16 | |||
| 17 | 5. Memory self-efficacy. | ||
| 18 | |||
| 19 | |||
| 20 | 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 PwD 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. | ||
| 21 | |||
| 22 | [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]] | ||
| 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 |