Skip to Content

Wiki source code of 3. Evaluation Methods

Version 5.4 by Jean-Paul Smit on 2024/03/01 02:48
Show last authors
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-direction. 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.
2
3 ==== Study design claims ====
4
5 The study will investigate the claims on the following questions:
6
7 ~1. Does the design increase the sense of //autonomy //in PwD?
8
9 2. Does the design positively affect PwD's //affective //state?
10
11 3. Is the design //dependable//; do PwD sense that they can rely on it?
12
13
14 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, which is why they should be taken into account in this study.
15
16
17 [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
18
19
20 == References ==
21
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