Project homeWiki source code of 3. Evaluation Methods
Version 7.1 by Jean-Paul Smit on 2024/03/01 02:54
Hide last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
5.3 | 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-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. |
| |
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 | |||
| |
6.3 | 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 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. |
| |
5.1 | 15 | |
| |
7.1 | 16 | The evaluation methods will be self-assessment, which can only be included in the study when it is validated. |
| |
5.1 | 17 | |
| |
6.2 | 18 | |
| |
3.12 | 19 | [[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]] |
| |
3.7 | 20 | |
| 21 | |||
| |
3.10 | 22 | == References == |
| 23 | |||
| |
3.9 | 24 | (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 |