Wiki source code of 3. Evaluation Methods

Version 5.1 by Jean-Paul Smit on 2024/03/01 02:43

version	line-number	content
4.3	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
3.2	2
4.4	3	==== Study design claims ====
	4
3.2	5	The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
	6
3.5	7	~1. Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in PwD?
3.3	8
3.6	9	2. Does the design positively affect PwD's //affective //state?
3.3	10
3.6	11	3. Is the design //dependable//; do PwD sense that they can rely on it?
3.3	12
	13
5.1	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.
	15
	16
3.12	17	[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
3.7	18
	19
3.10	20	== References ==
	21
3.9	22	(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

Applications