IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2019 - 35

Table 6. The relatives' results from the Satisfaction and Usability Questionnaire.
Dimension

Value Item
First

Second

Third

Perceived utility

I.1

4.25 ± 0.89

4.38 ± 0.74

4.5 ± 0.53

I.2

4 ± 0.93

4.25 ± 0.89

4.5 ± 0.93

I.3

3.88 ± 0.99

4 ± 0.93

4.5 ± 0.93

I.4

3.88 ± 0.83

4.13 ± 0.83

Facilitating conditions

I.5

3.88 ± 1.13

4 ± 1.07

4.13 ± 0.83

Empathy/social interaction

I.6

3.75 ± 1.16

4.38 ± 0.52

4 ± 0.93

I.7

4.5 ± 0.93

4.75 ± 0.46

3.88 ± 1.36

I.8

4 ± 0.93

4.25 ± 1.16

4.5 ± 1.07

Easy to use

improvement in the third evaluation with a value of 4.38 (I.3)
in the item that assessed whether or not patients felt overwhelmed by the robot. A 5 was obtained when the patients
were asked if they found it boring (I.4). The results of the
patient's questionnaire supported H1, H2, and H3.
For this assessment, it is important to emphasize that the
patients, after two months of training with the platform, stayed
motivated and committed to the treatment. This fact was a
challenge that arose from the design of the robotic platform
because one of the main causes of nonadherence to treatment
in traditional rehabilitation is the absence of variety in the exercises, which affects patient motivation. According to the results,
these patients, in general, consider that it works correctly in the
three evaluations, with a slight improvement (0.38), obtaining a
better score in the first evaluation compared to the third one
(I.5). In relation to evaluating empathy or interaction, the various scored items had good results, with a slight improvement in
the third evaluation, i.e., an average score of 4.75 out of 5 (I.6,
I.7, and I.8). These results supported H4.
Table 6 shows the results obtained from the evaluation by
the patients' relatives who participated in the different quantitative dimensions assessed in Table 1 during the first, second, and third evaluations of the system, as defined in the
evaluation design (see Figure 6). The results are also shown
as averages and deviations of the responses (from 0 to 5) for
all of the relatives.
The robotic platform was well appreciated by relatives and
caregivers. In general, families valued the robotic platform's
utility because it helps their family member perform the exercises (I.1). They felt that execution improved compared to
before training with the robot began (I.2). In the three evaluations performed, a slight improvement was observed in the
final evaluation, with a value of 4.5 out of 5 in both items after
training was complete and participants were getting to know
the robot better. These results supported H1.
Family members and caregivers stated that the platform
was easy to use, highlighting a slight improvement in the
third evaluation for the two items corresponding to whether or not they felt overwhelmed and whether or not the
exercises were boring, with a score of 4.50 and 4.13,

Evaluation by Relatives

respectively (I.3 and I.4), thus supporting H2. Also, relatives, in general, thought that the robot worked correctly,
showing a slight improvement on average in the third evaluation, with a score of 4.13 compared to 5 (I.5), thus supporting H4.
Finally, relatives positively valued the social empathy that
the robot exhibited (I.6, I.7, and I.8) and observed that their
children liked interacting with it, obtaining an average score
of 4 after completing the treatment. This value is slightly more
(0.25) when compared to the first evaluation at the start of
treatment, but decreases when compared to the second evaluation (0.38). This fact is also repeated in the value item of
motivation to come to the hospital to perform the training.
The best score is obtained in the second evaluation i.e., the
month of using the robot with a score of 4.75, which descends
in the third evaluation with a score of 3.88 (0.87). This decline
could be attributed to the fact that the routine may diminish
some interest, hence, indicating the need to develop new
games and so on that empathize with children and continually motivate them.
The professionals who participated in the pilot program
were a physiatrist (experts 1 and 2) and a therapist (expert 3).
The assessment was done through a questionnaire centered on

Table 7. The experts' results from the Satisfaction
and Usability Questionnaire. The value item is
described in Table 1.
Dimension

Value
Item
E.1

E.2

E.3 Mean ± SD

Perceived utility

I.1

4.33 ± 0.58

I.2

4.33 ± 0.58

Easy to use

Evaluation by
Clinical Experts

I.3

3.67 ± 0.58

I.4

4±1

Facilitating conditions I.5

4±1

I.6

4.33 ± 0.58

Empathy/social
interaction

JUNE 2019

IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE

IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2019