Skip to Content

Wiki source code of 3. Evaluation Methods

Version 38.1 by Jean-Paul Smit on 2024/03/27 17:58
Hide last authors
Rixt Hellinga 24.1 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.
Jean-Paul Smit 3.2 2
Rixt Hellinga 24.1 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 PwD's attitude towards robots and the **autonomy, relatedness** and **competence**.
Rixt Hellinga 18.1 4
William OGrady 31.1 5 ==== ====
Jean-Paul Smit 4.4 6
Jean-Paul Smit 37.1 7 == //**Study design variables**// ==
William OGrady 31.1 8
Jean-Paul Smit 37.1 9 The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system:
Jean-Paul Smit 3.2 10
Jean-Paul Smit 3.3 11
Jean-Paul Smit 37.1 12 1. **Autonomy. **Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in a PwD?
13 1. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state?
14 11. **Affect**. How do participants feel about using the robot in this state?
15 11. **Attitude towards Technology**. How do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the robot before the study?
16 1. **Competence. **Is the design //competent//; is the design capable enough for the PwD to rely on it?
17 11. **Memory self-efficacy **(pre-study) How good are participants at remembering information?
18 11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the robot?
Jean-Paul Smit 3.3 19
Jean-Paul Smit 37.1 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.
Jean-Paul Smit 3.3 21
Jean-Paul Smit 37.1 22 [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(4).jpg]]
Jean-Paul Smit 26.1 23
Jean-Paul Smit 30.1 24
Jean-Paul Smit 37.2 25 === Surveys ===
26
27 For autonomy, a validated survey tool is the self-care score as used in the Diabetes research paper of PAL by Neerincx et al.
28
Jean-Paul Smit 38.1 29 Affect will be measured by the Self-Assessment Manikin [2] that takes less than a minute. It will be used for both pre-experiment and post-experiment evaluation.
Jean-Paul Smit 37.2 30
31 For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions.
32
33 A well-suited tool for Memory self-efficacy is the Rivermead behavioural memory test [reference]. We adopt it to fit to the ecological validity and domain of interest in our study.
34
35
William OGrady 32.1 36 == //**References**// ==
Jean-Paul Smit 3.10 37
Jean-Paul Smit 38.1 38 [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>>https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0_4]]
39
40 [2] Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. //Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry//, //25//(1), 49-59.