This pilot study proposed and performs initial testing with Exoscore, a design evaluation tool to assess factors related to acceptance of exoskeleton by older adults, during the technology development and testing phases.
Background
As longevity increases and our aging population continues to grow, assistive technologies such as exosuits and exoskeletons can provide enhanced quality of life and independence. Exoscore is a design and prototype stage evaluation method to assess factors related to perceptions of the technology, the aim being to optimize technology acceptance.
Method
In this pilot study, we applied the three-phase Exoscore tool during testing with 11 older adults. The aims were to explore the feasibility and face validity of applying the design evaluation tool during user testing of a prototype soft lower limb exoskeleton.
Results
The Exoscore method is presented as part of an iterative design evaluation process. The method was applied during an exoskeleton research and development project. The data revealed the aspects of the concept design that rated favorably with the users and the aspects of the design that required more attention to improve their potential acceptance when deployed as finished products.
Conclusion
Exoscore was effectively applied to three phases of evaluation during a testing session of a soft exoskeleton. Future exoskeleton development can benefit from the application of this design evaluation tool.
Application
This study reveals how the introduction of Exoscore to exoskeleton development will be advantageous when assessing technology acceptance of exoskeletons by older adults.
BangorA.KortumP.MillerJ. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4, 114–123.
2.
BangorA.KortumP. T.MillerJ. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24, 574–594. doi:10.1080/10447310802205776
3.
BedafS.HuijnenC.van den HeuvelR.de WitteL. (2017). Robots supporting care for elderly people. In EncarnaçãoP.CookA. (Eds.), Robotic assistive technologies (pp. 309–332). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
4.
BhatnagarT.Ben MortensenW.MattieJ.WolffJ.ParkerC.BorisoffJ. (2017). A survey of stakeholder perspectives on a proposed combined exoskeleton-wheelchair technology. In IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (Vol. 2017, pp. 1574–1579). New York, NY: IEEE.
5.
BorisoffJ.KhaliliM.Ben MortensonW.Vander LoosH. F. M. (2017). Exoskeletons as an assistive technology for mobility and manipulation. In EncarnaçãoP.CookA. (Eds.), Robotic assistive technologies (pp. 179–218). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
6.
BrookeJ. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In JordanP. W.ThomasB. A.McClellandI. L. (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
7.
ChenK.ChanA. H. S. (2014). Gerontechnology acceptance by elderly Hong Kong Chinese: A senior technology acceptance model (STAM). Ergonomics, 57, 635–652. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.895855
8.
ChenT. L.BhattacharjeeT.BeerJ. M.TingL. H.HackneyM. E.RogersW. A.KempC. C. (2017). Older adults’ acceptance of a robot for partner dance-based exercise. PLOS ONE, 12(10), e0182736. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182736
9.
CookA. M. (2015). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice (4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier/Mosby.
10.
CzajaS. J.BootW. R.CharnessN.RogersW. A. (2019). Designing for older adults—Principles and creative human factors approaches (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
11.
DavisF. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
12.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
13.
Design Council. (2014). The design process: What is the double diamond?London, England: Author.
14.
DreyfussH. (2012). Designing for people. New York, NY: Allworth. (Original work published 1955)
15.
Fosch-VillarongaE.ÖzcanB. (2019). The progressive intertwinement between design, human needs and the regulation of care technology: The case of lower-limb exoskeletons. International Journal of Social Robotics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s12369-019-00537-8
16.
HansonG.TakahashiP.PecinaJ. (2013). Emerging technologies to support independent living of older adults at risk. Care Management Journals, 14, 58–64. doi:10.1891/1521-0987.14.1.58
17.
HeerinkM.KröseB.EversV.WielingaB. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2, 361–375. doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5
18.
HertzogM. A. (2008). Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 31, 180–191. doi:10.1002/nur.20247
19.
HoldenM. K.GillK. M.MagliozziM. R. (1986). Gait assessment for neurologically impaired patients: Standards for outcome assessment. Physical Therapy, 66, 1530–1539.
20.
HuysamenK.BoschT.de LoozeM.StadlerK. S.GrafE.O’SullivanL. (2018). Evaluation of a passive exoskeleton for static upper limb activities. Applied Ergonomics, 70, 148–155. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.208.02.009
21.
HuysamenK.de LoozeM. P.BoschT.OrtizJ.ToxiriS.O’SullivanL. (2018). Assessment of an active industrial exoskeleton to aid dynamic lifting and lowering manual handling tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 68, 125–131.
22.
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human—system interaction—Part 11: Usability—Definitions and concepts. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
23.
JohansonG. A.BrooksG. P. (2010). Initial scale development: Sample size for pilot studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 394–400. doi:10.1177/0013164409355692
24.
JordanP. W. (1998). An introduction to usability. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
25.
JordanP. W.ThomasB.WeerdmeesterB. A.McClellandI. L. (1996). Usability evaluation in industry. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
26.
KatzS.FordA. B.MoskowitzR. W.JacksonB. A.JaffeM. W. (1963). Studies of illness in the aged: The index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. Journal of the American Medical Association, 185, 914–919.
27.
KrugS. (2006). Don’t make me think! A common sense approach to Web usability (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
28.
LawtonM. P.BrodyE. M. (1970). Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Nursing Research, 19, 278.
29.
LeeE. C.WhiteheadA. L.JacquesR. M.JuliousS. A. (2014). The statistical interpretation of pilot trials: Should significance thresholds be reconsidered?BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 41. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-41
30.
LuijkxK.PeekS.WoutersE.TranzoS. (2015). “Grandma, you should do it—it’s cool”: Older adults and the role of family members in their acceptance of technology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 15470–15485.
31.
MitznerT. L.SanfordJ. A.RogersW. A. (2018). Closing the capacity-ability gap: Using technology to support aging with disability. Innovation in Aging, 2, 1–8.
32.
NielsenJ. (1993). Usability engineering (New ed.). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
33.
NormanD. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
34.
OstirG. V.GoodwinJ. S. (2006). High anxiety is associated with an increased risk of death in an older tri-ethnic population. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 534–540. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.10.008
35.
O’SullivanL.PowerV.VirkG.MasudN.HaiderU.ChristensenS.. . . VonckK. (2015). End user needs elicitation for a full-body exoskeleton to assist the elderly. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 1403–1409.
36.
PullinG. (2009). Design meets disability. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
37.
ReissE. L. (2012). Usable usability: Simple steps for making stuff better. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley.
38.
RobinsonH.MacDonaldB.BroadbentE. (2014). The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: A review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 575–591. doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0242-2
39.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
40.
RoweJ. W.KahnR. L. (2015). Successful aging 2.0: Conceptual expansions for the 21st century. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70, 593–596. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbv025
41.
SandersT.KaplanA.KochR.SchwartzM.HancockP. A. (2019). The relationship between trust and use choice in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 61, 614–626. doi:10.1177/0018720818816838
42.
SchererM. J.CraddockG. (2002). Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology and Disability, 14, 125–131.
43.
ShoreL. (2015). Developing the concept of shared usability in product design for older adults (Master’s thesis). Institute of Technology Carlow, Carlow, Ireland.
44.
ShoreL.De EytoA.O’SullivanL. (2018, June). Investigating perceptions related to technology acceptance & stigma of wearable robotic assistive devices by older adults—preliminary findings. Paper presented at the Design Research Society Conference 2018 (DRS2018), Limerick, Ireland.
45.
ShoreL.De EytoA.O’SullivanL. (2019). Technology acceptance and perceptions of exoskeletons by older adults—A qualitative study using a grounded theory approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.
46.
ShoreL.KiernanL.De EytoA.NicA.BhairdD.WhiteP.MoaneS. (2018). Older adult insights for age friendly environments, products and service systems. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 23, 40–58.
47.
ShoreL.PowerV.De EytoA.O’SullivanL. (2018). Technology acceptance and user-centred design of assistive exoskeletons for older adults: A commentary. Robotics, 7, 3. doi:10.3390/robotics7010003
48.
StonesD.GulliferJ. (2016). “At home it’s just so much easier to be yourself”: Older adults’ perceptions of ageing in place. Ageing & Society, 36, 449–481.
49.
Väänänen-Vainio-MattilaK.VäätäjäH.VainioT. (2009). Opportunities and challenges of designing the service user eXperience (SUX) in Web 2.0. In SaariluomaP.IsomäkiH. (Eds.), Future interaction design II (pp. 117–139). London, England: Springer.
50.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.
51.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540
52.
WickensC. D.LeeJ. D.LiuY.Gordon BeckerS. E. (2003). An introduction to human factors engineering (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
WuthrichV. M.JohncoC. J.WetherellJ. L. (2015). Differences in anxiety and depression symptoms: Comparison between older and younger clinical samples. International Psychogeriatrics27, 1523–1532. doi:10.1017/S1041610215000526
55.
XijuanZ.RamshaN.VictoriaS. (2016). Examining the effect of reverse worded items on the factor structure of the need for cognition scale. PLOS ONE, 11(6), e0157795. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157795
56.
XoSoft. (2016). XoSoft—Soft modular biomimetic exoskeleton to assist people with mobility impairments. Retrieved from https://www.xosoft.eu
57.
YandellM. B.QuinlivanB. T.PopovD.WalshC.ZelikK. E. (2017). Physical interface dynamics alter how robotic exosuits augment human movement: Implications for optimizing wearable assistive devices. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 14, 40. doi:10.1186/s12984-017-0247-9
58.
YoungA. J.FerrisD. P. (2017). State of the art and future directions for lower limb robotic exoskeletons. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 25, 171–182. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2521160
