IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2019 - 36

the questions in Table 1. These professionals indicated what
they most valued, first, in a global way and again at the end of
the evaluation process. Table 7 shows the valuations by each of
the experts; in the far right column of Table 1, the average
value and standard deviation of the three professionals for
each of the items evaluated.
According to the results in Table 7, the robotic platform
was also well accepted by health-care professionals. Specifically, health-care professionals rated the perceived utility
dimension with a 4.33 out of 5 on the two value items
related to whether or not they believe it helps and how best
to perform the exercises after training with the robot (I.1

Table 8. The patients' results from the open
questions provided in the questionnaire.
Value
Question

Evaluation by Patients
Activity

First (%)

Second (%)

Third (%)

Mirror

Q.2

Simon

None

Mirror

62.5

Q.3

Simon

37.5

None

12.5

Table 9. The relatives' results from the open
questions provided in the questionnaire.
The value question is described in Table 2.
Value
Question

Evaluation by Relatives
First (%)

Second (%)

Third (%)

Yes

62.5

Q.4

37.5

Not sure

Yes

100

Q.5

Not sure

and I.2). The professionals involved also believed that
patients were not overwhelmed by the robot (3.67 from I.3)
and that they were not bored (4 from I.4). Regarding the
facilitating conditions, they valued, with roughly a 4 out of
5, the item asking whether the robot worked correctly (I.5).
The experts also positively evaluated the empathy dimension or social interaction of the robot, considering that
patients expressed their liking of the robot with a score of
4.33 out of 5 (I.6). The results of the experts' questionnaire
were consistent with H1, H2, H3, and H4.
Qualitative Dimension
With regard to the qualitative evaluation, Table 8 shows the
evaluation of the patients' responses to questions about which
part of the training they liked the most (Q.2) and which one
was more difficult (Q.3). In relation to Q.2, the patients did
not change their opinion in the three evaluations; i.e., on average, the second part of the training was the part that they
liked the most (75%). With respect to Q.3, in the first and second evaluation, the part that they considered most difficult
was the first one (62.5%), coinciding with the part that they
liked the least. In the third evaluation, a patient changed his
opinion and said that the Simon game was the part that was
most difficult and, at the same time, the part he liked more.
However, in the third evaluation, the part that was still considered the most difficult was the first one. These results contributed to giving credibility to the hypothesis that, through
play, the child feels more motivated and uninhibited, thus
supporting H3.
Regarding the open question of what new things they
would like the robot to do (Q.1), the answers are diverse.
Among them, patients would like to eat ice cream, dance
(five times), play football (six times), sing (four times), or
run with the robot to improve its movements. Nearly all of
the answers are related to playing games.
The relatives and caregivers also had the opportunity to
share their opinions about the platform. Table 9 shows the
results of the qualitative evaluation carried out by the relatives
on whether or not they detected any improvement (Q.4) and
whether or not they would like their children to continue
training with the robot (Q.5). The results from the second
evaluation suggest that they believed the patient improved as
a result of training with the robot. Specifically, 62.5% of relatives stated that their children had performed movements

Table 10. The experts' results from the open questions provided in the questionnaire. The value question is
described in Table 2.
Value Question

Evaluation by Clinical Experts
E.1

E.2

E.3

Q.4

Not sure, because we
do not have enough
sessions and patients
to form conclusions.

Yes, most of the patients
have improved shoulder
flexion and abduction.

Yes, some of the children have improved shoulder flexion/
extension while others have improved shoulder rotation.
Some of the patients' relatives believe that the quality of
movement has improved.

Q.5

Yes

IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE

JUNE 2019

IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2019

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