User Studies - Science topic

Dear Scholar,

I appreciate your interest. I have already volunteered for three research projects and authored three, excluding the analytical research that I am working on now. Among the mentioned, I conducted Literature Review through an LRM a few times. I am a Freshman in Computer Science. I was wondering about joining the initiation.

Your questionnaire is too long and the questions are repetitive - But the two questions never asked - made me stop. -- I never was asked if I want to engage with robots. Or, even if past experience on any level was satisfactory.

Q. On what basis did you decide that the variances are too heterogeneous?

Take a look at Clustered Data examples on this UCLA page:

For your data, I think you would want code something like this:

* Random intercept model with Participant as the cluster variable.

MIXED Value BY Condition

/FIXED=Condition

/RANDOM=INTERCEPT | SUBJECT(Participant)

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=COVB SOLUTION TESTCOV

/EMMEANS=TABLES(Condition) COMPARE.

HTH.

Reading this article may give you a global idea of how to do it.

Hi Andrew and company,

If you have the data sheet yet, you could rename or delete the data you don't want.

Or you can use tools to researching like https://www.optimalworkshop.com/ I'm not sure now but I think the user can fill the data with fake name.

Dear Muna Alebri

Depictions of women on screen are often dependent on roles behind the scenes. Female directors tend to hire more women in key roles and depict women in a more positive light than men. However, Films directed by women were also much more likely to feature a female protagonist and to pass the Bechdel test.

Kind Regards

One key to productive public engagement is the need to inform the public about the hidden dynamics of infrastructure. In the early 1900s, there was a London neighborhood where workers had to pay a toll to cross a bridge to get to their jobs. The public, when informed of this, thought it was terrible to charge working class people a toll to get tot their jobs. In response, the government eliminated the toll. Within a short time, rents in this neighborhood increased by the amount of the toll. Workers who used the bridge were no better off than before. Some, who didn't use the bridge, were worse off because their rents went up and they received no benefit.

If infrastructure projects are well-designed and well-executed, the price of well-served land goes up, creating windfall profits for a few who are lucky-enough to own well-served land. The ability of private landowners to appropriate publicly-created land value is the fuel for land speculation -- a parasitic activity that creates nothing of value, but which inflates land prices to the detriment of residents and businesses alike.

So public engagement regarding infrastructure projects must include education about land value creation. This education should also inform people about techniques for land value return and recycling, whereby publicly-created land values can be returned to the public sector and used to pay for the infrastructure that created them.

I think it depends on a lot of things, like is your sample based on people who you'd reasonably expect to speak English. If not, then you'd skew your results by only having an English version. If you hire people with translation skills, then you should be OK, but to be sure, have different people do a back-translation of your instrument to make sure it tallies with your English version. Good luck.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the data, but at first glance I would use a linear mixed model approach as it can adequately deal with situations with missing/incomplete data and account for each individual's random effect and their correlation between response.

The UTAUT model ( Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology ) by Venkatesh (2003) is the most comprehensive and it is often used for measure the acceptance of (innovative) technology.

Following link will be helpful to find your requirements please. www.icchp.org

I think your overall sample size is quite small, so this is a problem in the first place. Did you run a a priori power analysis to determine the sample size?

Besides the overall small sample size, a multilevel model can handle a problem like this. Measures (conditions) are nested within participants, so that slopes and intercepts can be modeled and estimated witin each participant and then on the next level across participants. Have a look at Gelman & Hill - Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models.

Hi Dominik

First thing to start your literature research from is

Kraut, R.E., Resnick, P., Kiesler, S., Burke, M., Chen, Y., Kittur, N., Konstan, J., Ren, Y. and Riedl, J., 2012. Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design. Mit Press.

This book is a must read and will lead you to many more papers on the specific aspect you want to focus on.

We did some work on user contributions in online citizen science, where we used digital traces (logs of activities).

Luczak-Roesch, M., Tinati, R., Simperl, E., Van Kleek, M., Shadbolt, N. and Simpson, R.J., 2014, June. Why Won't Aliens Talk to Us? Content and Community Dynamics in Online Citizen Science. In ICWSM.

Tinati, R., Simperl, E., Luczak-Roesch, M., Van Kleek, M. and Shadbolt, N., 2014. Collective Intelligence in Citizen Science--A Study of Performers and Talkers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.7551.

Tinati, R., Luczak-Roesch, M., Simperl, E. and Shadbolt, N., 2014, June. Motivations of citizen scientists: A quantitative investigation of forum participation. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM conference on Web science (pp. 295-296). ACM.

Tinati, R., Luczak-Roesch, M., Simperl, E. and Hall, W., 2016, May. Because science is awesome: studying participation in a citizen science game. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science (pp. 45-54). ACM.

Vancouver

And there is a lot work on how people edit Wikipedia articles. You can start from the references in these papers:

Wierzbicki, A., Turek, P. and Nielek, R., 2010, July. Learning about team collaboration from Wikipedia edit history. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration(p. 27). ACM.

Kittur, A., Suh, B., Pendleton, B.A. and Chi, E.H., 2007, April. He says, she says: conflict and coordination in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 453-462). ACM.

Vancouver

Tinati, R., Luczak-Roesch, M. and Hall, W., 2016, April. Finding Structure in Wikipedia Edit Activity: An Information Cascade Approach. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 1007-1012). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.

Vancouver

Tinati, R., Luczak-Roesch, M., Shadbolt, N. and Hall, W., 2015, May. Using WikiProjects to Measure the Health of Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 369-370). ACM.

Indeed an interesting topic. Our project GIAGEM on Green Innovation Areas, linking urban green spaces and bioeconomic uses might be of interest to you.

I do not see meaning in looking for a correlation. What are the precise variables? There are many...With regard to psychological aspects, consider this very comprehensive and authoritative review by Robert Gifford, published in 2007. 

The Consequences of Living in High-Rise Buildings (PDF Download ...

Jasper, I recently used personas to segment doctoral faculty based on scholarly career categories and levels of publications and presentations. When working with personas much of it depends on how the entity feels such customers should be categorized and the objective of customer experience engagement to be measured in this academy example. I recommend reading my study A Academy Customer Experience Benchmark Study. 

In much meta-cognition researchers ask both a binary question, were there X in the scene, and then ask for confidence. It is recognized that people will have different thresholds for saying yes or no to the binary question, and the confidence rating can be used to help determine more the person's knowledge. The standard analysis methods are signal detection theory and multilevel logistic (or probit) models, but these often are the same (the parameter values will differ). I recommend looking up papers on meta-cognition that use signal detection theory.

Thank you every one. I found a useful paper describing Scenario Markup Language for driving behavior studies. It has a good literature review on other scenario authoring languages for virtual environment. I thought it would be helpful for anyone having same question.

Gajananan, Kugamoorthy, et al. "An experimental space for conducting controlled driving behavior studies based on a multiuser networked 3D virtual environment and the Scenario Markup Language." Human-Machine Systems, IEEE Transactions on 43.4 (2013): 345-358.

I am totally agree with Dr Krishnan.

Hi Kenan,

I used The Eye Tribe-Tracker for three experiments with a total of about 120 participants. The combination with ogama 5.0 software for post analysis, which I used, worked well.

The mean session time for using this combination was about 20 minutes.

I used a 12 point calibration with no extra tool to stabilize user's head and had to exclude about 8% of my participants because of low data quality (e.g. mascara-problems..)

The viewing distance was 60 cm using a 1280x1024 Display.

Repeating of calibration:

In about 70% i had to calibrate only once..

in about 25% i needed a second one.

in about 5% i needed more than 2 calibrations

I had some shut down problems with my EyeTribe-Ogama combination, when the mouse curser left partcipants screen.

May be shutdowns depend on computing power. I have an i7-machine and no further problems even with long session duration.

Best regards,

Matthias

I m looking also for such dataset

A method is more general overall 'approach' to your co-creation process, the general 'way' of doing it: for example you can choose to do a series of activities with end-users in their own natural context-of-use (a 'situated' method), you can focus on people's opinions, you can focus strongly on using prototypes, or focus on more abstract 'future scenario's', and so on.

A technique is a more specific 'procedure': how to concretely carry out some activity, and it forms part of a method. For example there are various techniques for 'eliciting user needs' or 'envisionment of new concepts', or 'evaluation techniques' etc.

A tool can be whatever concrete 'thing' you need (next to the people involved and the context) to do what you want to do. For example you may need wall, tape, a photocamera and printer as part of a 'user needs elicitation technique' in which you want people to photograph what they find interesting, put it on the wall and have them cluster these pictures together.

Often the word 'tool' is associated with specifically designed 'co-creation tools' such as multi-touch tables or boxes with tinkering materials or a set of diaries you can send to people for a 'context mapping technique' and so on. Here things can get blurry as these 'tools' are often designed with a specific 'technique' in mind: they are the physical embodiment of the technique. But an ordinary whiteboard can be a very important tool that says nothing about the technique for which you need it.

When the method is weak (very new, vague, etc) the difference between method and technique can be blurry as well. Politically scientists/engineers will try to 'coin' their own ways of working 'as a method' or 'technique' and then hope it catches on and 'really becomes something'. In that sense one could say that a method only really becomes a method if many other people start using it as such. (This is of course very different in the exact sciences where optimal 'methods' for solving this or that equation can be very strictly defined and proven to exist even if nobody cares about using them for anything).

Finally: in *practice*, at least in co-creation practices, I find the existence of the tool often precedes formal definition of the technique, and techniques often precede formal description of the method. So although it seems as if you first (should) have a method, within which you pick a certain number of techniques, for which you then go to the shop to buy or make the necessary tools, in reality it often goes the other way around: one starts by already selecting/creating and using tools, and after adapting and changing the tools to ones practical needs one realizes that one is 'actually' doing something that could be described as applying something of a technique, and when a number of related techniques can be put together and some consistent reasonable story can be told about them in which they all hang together, something of a 'method' seems to emerge.

I use a modified QUIS, when appropriate.