Results are organized in three parts. First, we present the alignment of families’ experience of the PedBotHome A/R gamebot with factors synthesized from two HEP adherence theories proposed based on work with children with CP. This section (Section 3.1
) addresses the first part (RQ1a) of the overarching research question that explores the fit of A/R gamebots within existing pediatric home exercise adherence theory. Second, we present the alignment of the PedBotHome experience with published exergame engagement factors, similarly developed through studies of children with CP. This section (Section 3.2
) addresses the RQ1b. Incorporated into the report of each of these alignments results, we make note of whether the PYTHEIA contains a related measure. Finally, we present the direct alignment of PedBotHome experience with the PYTHEIA scale based on parent and child appraisal. This final section (Section 3.3
) addresses RQ1c.
3.1. Alignment of PedBotHome User Experience with HEP Adherence Theory in CP (RQ1a)
Theories of adherence to HEP for children with CP have been explicitly proposed by two studies: Taylor et al., 2004 [13
] and Lillo-Navarro et al., 2015 [14
]. Both of these theories emerged from conventional (i.e., not robotic and not game-mediated) HEP. Taylor and colleagues categorized adherence factors into broad environmental and personal categories. Lillo-Navarro and colleagues focused on the environmental; factors they identified aligned with and effectively expanded upon those proposed by Taylor et al. Figure 3
provides a graphical representation of the factors reported by both studies. A synthesis of these two theories yielded 21 factors that mapped onto three categories of experience: Fit of Exercise Program in the Home Environment, Therapist Support, and Personal Factors. Families’ experience of PedBotHome aligned with 13 factors, did not align (with qualification) with seven factors, and aligned ambiguously with the remaining single factor. See Table 3
. We discuss each of these factors below in the context of families’ experience with PedBotHome, noting as well areas of alignment, non-alignment, and ambiguity with the constructs measured by the PYTHEIA.
3.1.1. Fit of Exercise Program in the Home Environment
Aligned. PedBotHome provided both the program and the equipment for children’s HEP. Adherence to use of the A/R gamebot was synonymous with adherence to the program. A focus on the centrality of equipment also aligns with the focus of the PYTHEIA: technology evaluation.
What the Exercise Is
Aligned. Exercise mediated by the PedBotHome robotic footplate controller consisted of three ankle exercise maneuvers as previous described with neutral, positive (assist), or negative (resist) force added as prescribed by the study therapist. The resist and assist functions created difficulties for children the carrying out the ankle exercises in the PedBotHome prototype.
Girl (age 9): Sometimes the resistance, and assistance for that matter, would go a little crazy.
Her Mom: It wouldn’t let go?
Girl: Sometimes it stopped completely or sometimes while I was up, it would freeze almost—not the—the screen would keep going, but I wouldn’t be able to move my foot. It felt like this invisible wall.
Assessment of functions such as assist/resist aligns with the PYTHEIA’s individual functionalities (IF) item set. See Table 4
Perceived Effectiveness of Exercise
Aligned. Families’ perception of improvements in flexibility and strength contributed to positive appraisal of PedBotHome.
Mom of 13-year-old Girl: [PedBotHome has led to a] big improvement for her! She is able to do things that she could never be able to do before. She’s never been able to do that, [stand] on her tip toe.
Perceived effectiveness aligns with item 2 of the PYTHEIA measuring perceived improvement the target A/RT effects in the individual’s everyday life.
Comfort during Exercise
Aligned. Issues of comfort caused children to make adjustments but did not interfere with their completion of daily prescribed exercises using PedBotHome.
Girl (age 11): I started to get this … on the foot piece, on the box … like where you put your foot in, and then there’s the box around it, the clear box around it. There was a screw somewhere in it and it was sticking out a little bit, and it was rubbing against my foot and it hurt. I put a piece of foam on it. It wasn’t permanent. I didn’t glue it on or anything. I just would stuff it there. When I got into the chair, it [the protruding screw] immediately started hurting, even before I started to play the games and stuff. [However] that didn’t discourage me to not do it.
Alignment of physical comfort with the items measured by the PYTHEIA is unclear. Items 2 (improvement to everyday life) and 10 (feeling protected) have some commonality. Items 13–15 deal with specifically social (versus physical) comfort.
Perceived Complexity of Doing Exercise
Aligned. Complexity was largely resident in the setup and calibration of PedBotHome in preparation to game-mediated exercising. A 13-year-old girl and her father recount their experience.
Dad: At first, I helped her, but when it’s working, it was fairly easy. Once it works, it’s easy to set up.
Daughter (age 13): After like 10 days, I started turning it on myself.
Dad: At times you forget to plug it in the phone [a cell phone was used as a component]
Daughter: I keep forgetting to charge the phone.
Dad: Yes, sometimes it’s the phone and you forget that you have to plug in the phone and charge it, but that’s a minor inconvenience. When you’re ready to do it, then you just plug it, so it’s somewhat charged. It’s fairly easy steps once it actually is working. It’s not complicated at all. You turn it on.
Complexity aligns with PYTHEIA item 5, ease of use (complexity, required effort).
Family Support or Disruption
Aligned. Family support took the form of parental structuring of time and the home environment. Interference with other activities was a source of frustration with PedBotHome.
Mom of 13-year-old girl: At first, it was a little difficult to figure out when we’re going to do it, how we’re going to do it [PedBotHome trial], how is the weekend going [to work out] because most of the time, I work on the weekends more than I do during the week. And so we had to figure that out. It took a little bit of working out because of work schedules and school and things like that.
Mom of 11-year-old girl. I think when they had an activity to get to, or they wanted to watch a show on TV, and she was expecting it [PedBotHome session] to be finished by, say, four o’clock and it would be finishing closer to 4:30, it started to get a little frustrating.
Family support aligns with both item 11, autonomy, and item 12, needing help from another person, on the PYTHEIA.
Fun Doing Exercise
Aligned. The waxing and then waning of the novelty of PedBotHome, and hence, how fun it was, was important to children’s appraisal.
Girl (age 11): I thought it was really cool for the first week. I thought it was the coolest thing ever. I would come home and I’d be like, “Oh, yes, I get to see PedBot”. Then towards the next couple of weeks, it got like, “Oh, I have to do PedBot today”. It was a really long thing. It made me not want to do it. I liked doing it once I got into it and once, I finished it and stuff, it was fun stuff. I wasn’t looking forward to it all day like I was in the beginning.
PYTHEIA Item 2, reflecting improvement to one’s everyday life, aligns with the concept of fun, particularly for a child.
Time Exercises Take to Complete
Aligned. Children were very conscious of the time spent completing PedBotHome exercises.
Boy (age 16). Every single time you fail, and then re-start, it takes a few minutes. So, it should be this 22-min [time] pressure this may be taking an hour, 40 min. I didn’t want to [invest that much time].
The PYTHEIA does not measure a time component and hence does not align with this factor.
Ambiguous alignment. PedBotHome captures all data to the system so does not incorporate a logbook as is common in manual HEP. In the context of the research pilot, however, families kept a log of their use of theA/R gamebot and made notations about any problems they encountered. Some children found the logging satisfying. See Figure 4
for examples of detailed logbooks some children kept.
Girl (age 11): Actually, I really liked the logbook thing. I thought it was really convenient and cool. I thought that it really made sense to use it. I understood it really well, and I thought it was a good way to keep track of it, and that was the first thing that I did when I got into PedBot. I would write the date, and my initials and the time I started. I never missed something on the log. I thought the log was good.
A logbook function, manual or electronic, aligns with the PYTHEIA Individual Functionalities item set.
3.1.2. Therapist Support
Not aligned (entire category). By design, it was exceptional for the study therapist to interact directly with families during the PedBotHome 28-day pilot. Consequently, none of the therapist support factors apply directly to the PedBotHome experience. The functions attributed to the therapist by Lillo-Navarro et al. [13
], however, are essential functions and were carried out as a programmed function of the A/R gamebot technology or through support of family members and study software and hardware engineers.
Training, including demonstrating the PedBotHome system, was conducted by the research technical team.
Girl (age 11): [First names of research hardware and software engineers] came while they were setting it up, and then I did my first round while they were there so if anything went wrong, then they would help me figure it out. They showed me how to get into the chair and how to strap my [foot in] and how to unstrap and how to turn on things. I didn’t really read the manual because I just learned from that one experience when they taught me how to do it.
Interviewer: Were you comfortable working with the engineers versus having a therapist there?
Girl: Yes. I thought it was totally fine. It was good. They were really helpful and stuff too, nice.
PYTHEIA item 12, needing help from another person, aligns and ease-of-learning items 3 and 4 may align with demonstrating exercises.
Any need for troubleshooting was likewise addressed through voice or video calls from the study engineers.
Mom of 9-year-old girl: (considering) Problems where we had to call [first name of hardware engineer]
Daughter: Two, three.
Mom: Yes. Maybe three times. Something like that. It was usually because the Wi-Fi wasn’t connecting.
PYTHEIA item 12, needing help from another person aligns with coaching.
Perceived Regular Monitoring
Monitoring of data was performed regularly by the study therapist during the PedBotHome trial; however, families were neither aware nor concerned.
Girl (age 11). No. I didn’t know that they were watching. I didn’t know that it was a therapist because I thought it was just [software or hardware engineer] was watching.
Interviewer: Did you have any concerns that maybe the exercises weren’t right? You had the problem with the timing. Did you ever think that maybe the PedBotHome was stretching you too far, too long? Something that might have been allayed by therapists saying, “No. This is okay”.
Girl’s Mom: I’m fishing so hard. I think the answer’s no.
Girl: I don’t really know. I don’t think so.
No PYTHEIA item measures monitoring.
One family employed both direct and environmental reminders to their child with CP to interact with PedBotHome.
Interviewer: (to child) Did you need reminders to use PedBotHome at all?
Girl (age 11): Not really. I knew that my mom would be like, “Do PedBot now”, and I would be like, “Okay”. I always knew that I had to do it after school because there was a time built in for it. I never really needed someone to tell me to do it because it was right in the middle of where we do all of our stuff, so I would always see it and I would feel like, “I have to do it”.
Mom of Girl: Part of that was strategic. The hub of our household is our family room, kitchen, it’s one big space. So, I told them [the research team] definitely we want it right here because if it’s away from the action, [girl’s name] will have a hard time. She is not a kid that likes to be away from the middle of the action. She likes to be around everyone. If it were my older daughter who’s more introverted, I probably would’ve said, “Let’s put it off to the side somewhere because she likes that”, but that’s not [girl’s name]. It’s probably important for people to take into account the personality of the user a little bit. I think that helped for her to have it there, because then her little brothers would come around and be like, “Oh”. They’d be watching her do it. It was more interactive for her than being off somewhere by herself.
This family’s experience aligns with PYTHEIA item 1, adaptability, as well as items 11, autonomy, and 12, needing help from others.
Identifying Changes in Child’s Performance
Children thought of their performance as performance in the game. Progress in the game, a higher score, served as a proxy for therapeutic gains.
Interviewer: You’re nine years old, knew it was therapy. Were you thinking like, “I want to get a better score”. And then, “Oh. By the way, this is actually helping my ankle”. Or, “Heck with the score. I want to improve my ankle range of motion strength”?
Girl (age 9): I was thinking about the score.
Girl’s Mom: I think that’s true.
Item 2 of the PYTHEIA relative to improvement in one’s everything life aligns in both perspectives as short-term improvement, higher score in-game, and longer-term improvement, actual physiological improvement.
Providing Goal-Based Incentives
Again, the game score provided the child’s goal with in-game goals (scores) serving as a proxy for the underlying goal of physical improvement.
Interviewer: Did the game and your score, did that provide any incentive when you were interacting with the system?
Girl (age 9): A lot of the times I want to get higher scores.
Girl’s Mom: You would try harder.
Girl: Yes. Sometimes.
As above, item 2 of the PYTHEIA relative to improvement in one’s everything life aligns in both perspectives as short-term improvement, higher score in-game, and longer-term improvement, actual physiological improvement.
Providing Peace of Mind
Families were confident in the appropriate functioning of PedBotHome and did not need reassurance from the study clinician.
Mom of 9-year-old girl: Yes. I remember when we would do stretches and stuff and you just think, “I don’t know if I’m doing this right or enough”. Yes. It [PedBotHome] removed that completely. In some ways, you’re giving up control and so you’re just like saying, “Well, we’ll just see how this works”. Yes. It does.
There is no alignment between PYTHEIA measures and providing peace of mind.
Clinical, Regulatory, Engineering, and Commercial Product Domain Expert Advice on Role of Clinicians in Extending Therapy Provision Models
A business-to-business-to-consumer (B to B to C) model for engaging end users with novel rehabilitation technologies was advanced by the 24 experts we consulted. In this model, geared to the service delivery process in the U.S., therapists assume the role of early adopters of the technology, incorporating it into their practice and introducing their client/patient families to it. Families, subsequently, become secondary adopters.
3.1.3. Personal Factors
All personal factors identified by HEP adherence theories aligned with the experience of adherence among PedBotHome families. Though the PYTHEIA measures the impact of technology on users’ autonomy and effort, it does not do the reverse, i.e., measure the impact of personal characteristics on technology acceptance. Since this is the case, the PYTHEIA does not align with the personal factors of HEP adherence theory listed below.
Aligned. Children demonstrated their autonomy using PedBotHome and parents endorsed and supported that characteristic.
Mom of 15-year-old Girl: Actually, almost every time I don’t have to be there at all. She does the whole thing by herself even [strapping her foot into the robot controller]. She can reach and do it”.
Mom of 11-year-old Girl: I think it’s easier for children to initiate it when they can be responsible for it when it doesn’t require a parent or some other caregiver being responsible to sit down with them. I think that one thing for busy families with other kids and lots of activities, it’s certainly nice when they can be responsible for it. I think she felt that way, too. She could take it over and didn’t have to wait for me or, “I have to run so and so here. I’ll be back”. Then, we’re delaying it. She could just come in from school and know her own schedule and do it.
Aligned. An 11-year-old girl describes the fluctuations in her effort showing the intertwined nature of effort, autonomy, and motivation.
Girl (age 11): I think that I put a lot of effort into it [piloting PedBotHome]. It depended, though. This is a little funny because sometimes, I was really into it and I really wanted to do really well on it. Then, other times, on the test, the 10-plane one, I would be like, “I really want to do good on this so that I can get a better score, and then they can all see how I’m improving”. It feels as something like every other one, I would have just been trying average or just okay. I wasn’t trying as hard as I did for the 10-plane. I think it really depended on which kind of run I was on.
Aligned. Health issues limited some children’s adherence to the 28-day, PedBotHome regimen.
Mom of 13-year-old Girl: I know that we were supposed to do 21 [sessions] out of the month, [and] I really felt like we should be doing as much as we should do, but somedays, like when she was sick, I’m not going to force her to do whatever.
Aligned. PedBotHome families described three different types of motivation to adhere to their exercise programs.
The perceived fun of the game framing PedBotHome exercise enhanced/impeded intrinsic motivation to engage in therapeutic exercise.
Interviewer: Any other thoughts about how the game could have been more motivating?
Girl (age 11): Maybe swapping out the games, making it more interesting. You could ask kids for opinions on games instead of just [deciding on your own].
The sense of purpose most families found in being a part of CP therapy research was another source of motivation.
Girl (age 15): Well, sometimes I get distracted. But I’ve tried to concentrate on the game.
Girl’s Mom: Like today for example she was looking into her phone trying to find when her French homework is due. She’s older she has more responsibilities and thinking about those things. Other than that, she thinks it’s really cool that she’s [involved]. She knows that not so many 15-year-olds get to have this opportunity to work in [technology research]. We’re very thankful.
The father of a 13-year-old girl reflected on the motivational trade-offs of having PedBotHome in the home versus using a similar system in the clinic.
Dad: When I drive her down there to [the clinic], she’s stuck. She has no other choice. She’s sitting in a chair, everybody’s around, you have no choice but to sit here till it’s done, and I’m sitting out waiting. When you’re at home, even though it’s convenient, it’s harder, in a sense, to use it. People think it’s easier in a sense, but it’s not always easy. You have to almost motivate yourself more to do.
Aligned. Parents saw having PedBotHome in their homes as an efficient way to manage their own time better, avoiding time spent taking children to clinic appointments, while their children have more potential time in therapy given a home system.
Dad of 13-year-old Girl: It’s traffic going down there and coming back. That’s twice a week, so I had to readjust my own work schedule for that one, take some leave here and readjust work and all these other things. Having it here is a lot easier. Theoretically, [if] a person has it permanently in the house … let’s say a person uses it 15 min a day, four days a week, that’s 60 min. You can technically do more than any almost physical therapy because they have to schedule people to meet with somebody. That’s a whole other issue right there. When you’re at your home, you just jump on there for 15, 20 min a day, four or five days a week.
Children found the bug in PedBotHome where the system timer counted time in-game versus clock time particularly frustrating.
Girl (age 13): Sometimes it seems like when we put down the time and it’s 24 min, I feel like we’ve been in there for 35 or 40 min. So timewise, I think it would be better [to have the bug fixed], so we can gauge more. I think the right time would be a real great thing.
3.3. Alignment of PedBotHome Experience with Acceptance Factors Measured by the PYTHEIA (RQ1c)
Of the 20 factors identified by the PYTHEIA for subjective evaluation of robotic technologies, 10 aligned with the experience of children and parents piloting PedBotHome, and two did not align. Two factors aligned, but with noted ambiguity, and further, two factors aligned but admitted at least a dual interpretation. The final four factors were of ambiguous relevance to the evaluation of an A/R gamebot technology as exemplified by PedBotHome. See Table 4
for a summary. Findings relative to alignment of PYTHEIA scale items with PedBotHome experience follow. (Note, main scale items are numbered 1–15; repeatable scale items, IF-1–5, are numbered 16–20).
Aligned. PedBotHome placement within the family home involved deliberate choices on the part of parents and children. One mother strategically positioned the system at the center of family activities. See quotation, Section 3.1.2
, 13 Giving Reminders. Another mother used the A/R gamebot to “seed” a therapy area for her 13-year-old daughter with CP.
Mom of 13-year-old Girl: I prefer to keep it out here rather than like on the living room or down the basement like I didn’t want to do that, I want her to be able to have a routine where that room could be where she does her therapy, she needs to stretch or anything like that with her little yoga mat or something.
Note that the scale item refers broadly to the “spaces where one spends one’s everyday life, home, work”. Our focus was only the home environment, given that home is central to the PedBotHome and the HEP it facilitates.
3.3.2. Improvement to Everyday Life
Aligned, with a dual focus. “Improvement” mapped to improvements to the experience of doing exercise mediated by A/R gamebot technology. See comment associated with 16. Game Increased Motivation to do Exercise, Section 3.2.5
from the 10-year-old participant who stated that, had her stretching and strengthening exercises not been presented in a game framework, she would have refused to do them.
Improvement also mapped to the functional improvements that children experienced as a result of from doing therapy on PedBot Home. One child noted that she tripped less after spending time exercising using the system.
Girl (age 11): I used to be walking and then trip, and then walk and trip. Then since I’ve been doing it or when I was doing it, then I haven’t tripped and I’ve been walking more straight. I used to walk with my foot at a 45 degree/90-degree angle. Now I walk almost straight. It’s pretty straight. I think it [using PedBotHome] did make a difference.
3.3.3. Ease of Learning All Individual Functions (Item 3)
Aligned, with ambiguity. Parents and children were at a loss to distinguish “all” individual from “basic” functions. Families focused on setup and run of PedBotHome as the most basic, essential functionality. The mother of a nine-year-old girl recounted an early experience demonstrating the importance of ease of learning the system.
Mom: It [PedBotHome] came. Then we had a day or two [using it]. Then I went away for a few days. Something had unplugged. My husband couldn’t figure out—or he didn’t try.
Daughter (age 9): (talking over) He couldn’t figure out.
Mom: how to put it back together. But then we finally figured it out when I got back. I thought it was pretty straightforward. It’s not complicating. That was easy.
3.3.4. Ease of Learning All Basic Functions
3.3.5. Ease of Use (Complexity, Required Effort)
Aligned. See previous sections showing the importance of the complexity factor in both HEP, Section 3.1.1
item 5. Perceived Complexity of Doing Exercise, as well as exergaming Section 3.2.1
item 2, Difficulty/Ease of Play.
Ambiguous. Overlap with feeling protected, secure, confident (Section 3.3.10
below). The conversation with a nine-year-old girl and her mother pointed up the overlap among the PYTHEIA scale concepts: secure, protected, and confident.
Interviewer: (Talking about problems with the resist function of PedBotHome) Would you say that it interfered with your sense of security, but not necessarily your sense of safety? You didn’t feel unsafe, but you weren’t secure, you weren’t confident in the machine when it did that. Is that accurate?
Girl (age 9): Maybe. I never felt like anything was going to happen. I just felt, “It’s having a tantrum again”.
Mom: More frustration than any safety or insecurity?
Interviewer: You didn’t have confidence in it?
Interviewer: Then actually the fourth question is about reliability. Is reliability [a] better [concept] than security?
3.3.7. Dimensions (Height, Width, Length)
Aligned. Families accepted the large footprint of the PedBotHome prototype in the context of research, but perceived it as in their way.
Mom of 9-year-old Girl: I wouldn’t say it was in the way, but it’s big.
Girl: It’s chunky.
Mom: Yes, it’s chunky, and the wires did get pulled out a few times. I’m not exactly sure how it all happened, but it was kind of right next to our computer and so, I think people would sit down with the computer and then inadvertently knock something over or whatever.
Aligned. Families never moved the system but identified it as a concern in a non-research context.
Mom of 9-year-old Girl: We didn’t ever have to pick it up or move it. It didn’t really affect us. It’s heavy. If it were in our home [permanently], and we did have to move it …
Girl: It would be a two-man job!
3.3.9. Sufficiency of Functionality
Aligned. The control interface and the game itself were the functionalities with which families were uniformly concerned. Refer to details in previous Sections: Section 3.2.2
, Physical Interface; and Section 3.2.3
, Game Scenario and Graphics.
3.3.10. Feeling Protected, Secure, Confident
3.3.11. Feeling More Autonomous
Aligned. Children demonstrated autonomy in the setup and use of PedBotHome (see Section 3.1.3
, number 17, Autonomy) and this self-sufficiency aided their completion of sessions on the platform. Parents valued their children’s autonomy as an aid to managing their own adult schedules. This autonomy further promised a decoupling from the burden of coordination of and transportation to therapy appointments. The father of a PedBotHome family living in the far suburbs described.
Dad of 13-year-old Girl: There’s huge market as far as rehabilitation I think, especially in the outlying areas of [name of state], and once you get outside of [near suburbs] and closer to [the center city], but once you start going up to the [far suburbs], you don’t want to drive there [back into the city for where the clinic is]. I think a lot of people probably won’t even drive down to [the center city] just because you can’t spend three hours coming back. It’s brutal, it really is. We actually did the [commuter train] one day, it’s just as bad. It was just bad, even though you’re not driving. … [So] yes, as far as [doing therapy] remote-wise, absolutely. In the future, I think if the system [PedBotHome prototype] was tight, yes, you’d save having to go down there. You see a lot of people going down there, hours are spent driving [that could be used for something else].
3.3.12. Needing Help from Another Person to Use
Aligned. This item is related to Section 3.3.11
, feeling more autonomous. Children did not typically need help from another person, after initial setup, to use PedBotHome. However, several did not endorse the value of disconnecting from another person for the sake of not requiring help. (See Section 3.2.5
, number 15, Help Game Provides Correctly Doing Therapeutic Movements.) An 11-year-old girl recollects her experience, from several years earlier, with a physical therapist and her mother supporting her in practicing exercises at home.
Girl (age 11): Yes. I think that it was a lot easier to do regular exercises. I don’t really remember as much, but I feel like it’s a lot maybe more effective. When we went to view my rechecking not all of my things improved, but I feel like if I did something like regular exercise every day, then maybe it would improve better because it would be—not just in one spot. I’d be able to move around enough. I think if I use regular exercises, it was more free, I guess because I had the freedom to walk around I guess. Since I’ve been doing PedBot, and PedBot you’re pretty much just sitting down the whole time. I feel like PedBotHome was easier, or it was harder to do that because it didn’t give me all the strength in all of my muscles. It was just a little bit my foot muscles pretty much, and I feel like if I did exercising it would be stretching out all of my muscles.
3.3.13. Comfort Using in the Community
Not aligned. The device is designed exclusively for home use.
3.3.14. Comfort Using around Colleagues (Working Environment)
Not aligned. The device is designed exclusively for home use.
3.3.15. Comfort Using around Friends and Family
Aligned. Using PedBotHome conferred a “celebrity” status on children in the pilot. Two girls recounted how their family and friends positively affirmed them when they demonstrated exercising on the system.
Girl (age 9): There was one friend who loved it [PedBotHome]. She would literally get a snack from the pantry and just watch me do it. She said it was like she was eating popcorn while watching a movie”.
Mom of 11-year-old Girl: Anybody who came over would ask about it, and we were excited to share about it. The other kids, we have four kids, and so all of them were fascinated by it. It was fun. It was something that I think was a really good experience overall.
Daughter (age 11): Yes, I think I agree with you, mom. I think it was like when people came over, they were interested in it and they would watch me do it and be like, “That’s really cool”.
3.3.16. Individual Functionalities, Item IF1, Ease of Use
3.3.17. Individual Functionalities, Item IF2, Help Provided in Everyday Life
3.3.18. Individual Functionalities, Item IF3, Safety, Security
3.3.19. Item IF4, Reliability
Aligned. The expected breakdowns that occurred in testing the PedBotHome prototype in children’s homes pointed up the important of reliability as a use factor. The father in one family that experienced difficult-to-resolve system failures during the trial described the interaction of reliability and family routine.
Daughter (age 13): If it stops working, you don’t use it.
Dad: It’s like a game, if you don’t use it, it’s going to be, “No, I’ll try again tomorrow”. You turn it on and see if it works. I think that’s important because if it’s at home, you schedule. You create a little time to do it, but in the scope of things in a day, you have other things to do.
Interviewer: So it needs to be on when you’re ready.
Dad: Yes, that’s a big thing.
3.3.20. Item IF5, Feeling of Safety