Project homeWiki source code of 3. Evaluation Methods
Version 55.1 by William OGrady on 2024/04/08 22:21
Hide last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
48.1 | 1 | == Overview == |
| 2 | |||
| |
51.1 | 3 | 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 PwDs. Three methods of evaluation will be applied to have reliable and accurate results, as Bethel. et al (2020)[1] suggests. |
| |
3.2 | 4 | |
| |
55.1 | 5 | 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. This is done through our pre- and post-study evaluation. |
| |
18.1 | 6 | |
| |
31.1 | 7 | ==== ==== |
| |
4.4 | 8 | |
| |
45.1 | 9 | == Study Design Variables == |
| |
31.1 | 10 | |
| |
37.1 | 11 | The study will hypothesize on the following variables with regards to the system: |
| |
3.2 | 12 | |
| |
37.1 | 13 | 1. **Relatedness. **Does the design positively affect the PwD's //affective //state? |
| |
46.1 | 14 | 11. **Affect**. How do participants feel about using the NAO in this state? |
| |
50.1 | 15 | 11. **Attitude towards Technology**. What do people think about using technology? Are they biased towards the NAO before the study? |
| |
37.1 | 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? | ||
| |
46.1 | 18 | 11. **Memory recall **(post-study) Can the participant accurately retrieve information through the NAO? |
| |
3.3 | 19 | |
| |
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. |
| |
3.3 | 21 | |
| |
40.1 | 22 | [[image:3\. Evaluation.b\. Test.WebHome@Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]] |
| |
26.1 | 23 | |
| |
30.1 | 24 | |
| |
45.1 | 25 | == Surveys == |
| |
37.2 | 26 | |
| |
47.1 | 27 | 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. For Attitude towards robots, we build upon the works of [reference] and create a set of two 1-minute questions. A well-suited tool for Memory self-efficacy is the mini-mental state examination [3]. We adopt it to fit to the ecological validity and domain of interest in our study. |
| |
37.2 | 28 | |
| 29 | |||
| |
45.1 | 30 | == References == |
| |
3.10 | 31 | |
| |
38.1 | 32 | [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]] |
| 33 | |||
| 34 | [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. | ||
| |
39.1 | 35 | |
| 36 | [3] Kurlowicz, L., & Wallace, M. (1999). The mini-mental state examination (MMSE). //Journal of gerontological nursing//, //25//(5), 8-9. |