1. Prototype Scope: “Is the Artifact or Prototype described with a clear scope, indicating which specific Requirements and Design Specifications it implements for testing?”
Applies to: Prototype
Prototype:
Meets Criterion:
States a focal Claim about dancing improving patient happiness and outlines a robot-based dance session using a Miro robot connected via a Python library and LLM.
Scope does not list the specific Requirements/Design Specifications implemented; functions and constraints are not enumerated.
Prototype maturity and boundaries are unclear (what is functional now vs. to-be-implemented).
No explicit traceability from the evaluated functions to prior Specification artifacts (Use Cases, Requirements, Claims identifiers).
2. Methodological Rigor: Is the chosen Evaluation Method clearly described and justified as being appropriate for testing the specific Claims outlined in the Specification stage?
Applies to: Test
Test:
Meets Criterion:
Outlines two alternative experimental designs (A/B with/without dancing; pre-post mood questionnaire).
Defines roles and tasks for host, participant, and robot; includes an informed consent step.
(Potential) Improvements
The descriptions should be elaborated
3. Clarity of Measures: Are the Measures used in the test clearly defined and directly linked to the operationalization of the Claims?
Applies to: Test
Test:
Meets Criterion:
Identifies physiological measures (heart rate, calories burned) and session duration for physical engagement.
Includes a Likert questionnaire for mental well-being with items adapted from established instruments.
Improve justification of item selection, generation or adjustment (referring to foundation, existing instruments).
Explain the relations of the measures with claims (effects).
4. Results and Claim Validation: Do the Evaluation Results provide clear empirical evidence that either supports or refutes the tested Claims?
Applies to: Test
Test:
Meets Criterion:
—
(Potential) Improvements
No results reported yet
5. Discussion of Results: Is there a thorough discussion of the Evaluation Results, including an analysis of the study's limitations and any unexpected findings?
Applies to: Test
Test:
Meets Criterion:
—
(Potential) Improvements
No discussion provided yet (e.g., think about limitations such as non-target participants, novelty effects, device accuracy, and setting constraints).
6. Iterative Feedback Loop: Does the evaluation conclude with a clear analysis of how the Evaluation Results could inform the next iteration of the Foundation or Specification?
Applies to: Test
Test:
Meets Criterion:
—
(Potential) Improvements
No explicit plan et for feeding findings into the next iteration (e.g., adjusting dance prompting frequency, music personalization, or Claims refinement).
1. Prototype Scope: "Is the Artifact or Prototype described with a clear scope, indicating which specific Requirements and Design Specifications it implements for testing?"
Applies to: Prototype
Prototype
Meets the criterion:
Very barebones description of the prototype.
(Potential) Improvements:
Scope does not list the specific Requirements/Design Specifications implemented; functions and constraints are not enumerated.
Prototype maturity and boundaries are unclear (what is functional now vs. to-be-implemented).
No explicit traceability from the evaluated functions to prior Specification artifacts (Use Cases, Requirements, Claims identifiers).
2. Methodological Rigor: "Is the chosen Evaluation Method clearly described and justified as being appropriate for testing the specific Claims outlined in the Specification stage?"
Applies to: Test
Test
Meets the criterion:
Describes participants, tasks, informed consent, and pre/post testing; collects physiological and self-report data.
Outlines the intended comparison of mood/engagement changes with dancing.
(Potential) Improvements:
Justify proxy sample and define inclusion/exclusion criteria; add description of design and randomization/counterbalancing for conditions.
3. Clarity of Measures: "Are the Measures used in the test clearly defined and directly linked to the operationalization of the Claims?"
Applies to: Test
Measures
Meets the criterion:
Specifies heart rate, calories, time dancing; uses a PANAS-inspired mood questionnaire; reports unexpected reduction of physical exhaustion.
Links physical measures to CL001 and mood to CL002 at high level.
(Potential) Improvements:
Detail timing windows, scaling, aggregation; justify adapted items or use validated subscales; map each item to a claim construct.
Add objective activity classification (steps, cadence) and set success thresholds for claim support.
4. Results and Claim Validation: "Do the Evaluation Results provide clear empirical evidence that either supports or refutes the tested Claims?"
Applies to: Test
Test
Meets the criterion:
Shows overall mood improvement and decreased negative affect across participants; interprets Zone-2 intensity from cardio data.
Identifies detrimental effects from ASR issues on some items (proudness, miserable).
Separate usability/ASR issues from well-being outcomes; conduct sensitivity analyses.
5. Discussion of Results: "Is there a thorough discussion of the Evaluation Results, including an analysis of the study's limitations and any unexpected findings?"
Applies to: Test
Test
Meets the criterion:
Discusses how music/dancing improved mood and how recognition errors harmed experience; acknowledges light intensity.
Notes the student sample and prototype constraints.
Relate findings to HF concepts (e.g., motivation, social facilitation) to guide next design choices.
6. Iterative Feedback Loop: "Does the evaluation conclude with a clear analysis of how the Evaluation Results could inform the next iteration of the Foundation or Specification?"
Applies to: Test
Test
Meets the criterion:
Proposes improving ASR and adding robot dancing; suggests testing with PwD and larger N.
Points to refining study design and recruiting target users.
(Potential) Improvements:
Translate improvements into updated Requirements/Claims (e.g., ASR accuracy prerequisite, co-dancing function) .
Add a plan to update Specification patterns (timing, encouragement) based on empirical findings.
Project home
1. Prototype Scope: “Is the Artifact or Prototype described with a clear scope, indicating which specific Requirements and Design Specifications it implements for testing?”
Applies to: Prototype
2. Methodological Rigor: Is the chosen Evaluation Method clearly described and justified as being appropriate for testing the specific Claims outlined in the Specification stage?
Applies to: Test
3. Clarity of Measures: Are the Measures used in the test clearly defined and directly linked to the operationalization of the Claims?
Applies to: Test
4. Results and Claim Validation: Do the Evaluation Results provide clear empirical evidence that either supports or refutes the tested Claims?
Applies to: Test
5. Discussion of Results: Is there a thorough discussion of the Evaluation Results, including an analysis of the study's limitations and any unexpected findings?
Applies to: Test
6. Iterative Feedback Loop: Does the evaluation conclude with a clear analysis of how the Evaluation Results could inform the next iteration of the Foundation or Specification?
Applies to: Test
Feedback on Revised Draft
1. Prototype Scope: "Is the Artifact or Prototype described with a clear scope, indicating which specific Requirements and Design Specifications it implements for testing?"
Applies to: Prototype
Prototype
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements:
2. Methodological Rigor: "Is the chosen Evaluation Method clearly described and justified as being appropriate for testing the specific Claims outlined in the Specification stage?"
Applies to: Test
Test
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements:
3. Clarity of Measures: "Are the Measures used in the test clearly defined and directly linked to the operationalization of the Claims?"
Applies to: Test
Measures
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements:
4. Results and Claim Validation: "Do the Evaluation Results provide clear empirical evidence that either supports or refutes the tested Claims?"
Applies to: Test
Test
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements:
5. Discussion of Results: "Is there a thorough discussion of the Evaluation Results, including an analysis of the study's limitations and any unexpected findings?"
Applies to: Test
Test
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements:
6. Iterative Feedback Loop: "Does the evaluation conclude with a clear analysis of how the Evaluation Results could inform the next iteration of the Foundation or Specification?"
Applies to: Test
Test
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements: