Thursday, December 3, 2009

scheduling for NYISE - draft

Schedule for testing NYISE
December 8 (Tuesday) through December 11 (Friday)
Daily 8:30 PM

Tuesday
Complete setup of all equipment
Testing of equipment
Run through blindfolded TGI staff on course
O&M specialist should prepare kids, perhaps show them the route and explain what will happen


The first trial for each subject, the subject will be have the experiment explained
The testers may use whatever appropriate language is necessary, and take as much time as they feel is reasonable for the subject to understand and be comfortable.
Subjects will be asked if they are comfortable with the headphones and the goggles.
Verbal and non-verbal response will indicate whether the subject should continue. Subjects will then be guided once down the course, shown the end of the course and the safety obstacle.
Subjects will then be walked/guided back to the start of the course.
Subjects will always complete trials for veering before trials for coverage.

I am suggesting we test based on time, not number of trials. There is no way I can think of to stay on a schedule when we might see great variability with each child. Doing as many trials as possible during a prescribed period makes sense. Annette, to you see a study design problem with this?

The tables do not appear below correctly on the blog.

Day 1: Veering trials only. Each subject should complete as many trials as possible during the 45 minute period.

Wednesday

Time Subject Veering
9:00 I001
9:45 I002
10:30 I003
11:15 I004
12:00 Lunch
12:45 I005
1:00 I006
1:45 I007
2:30 I008


Day 2: Veering trials for 15 minutes, followed by cane coverage trials

Thursday

Time Subject Veering Coverage Total
9:00 I008
9:45 I007
10:30 I006
11:15 I005
12:00 Lunch
12:45 I004
1:00 I003
1:45 I002
2:30 I001


Day 3: Veering trials for 20 minutes, followed by cane coverage trials for 20 minutes

Friday

Time Subject Veering Coverage Total
9:00 I001
9:45 I002
10:30 I003
11:15 I004
12:00 Lunch
12:45 I005
1:00 I006
1:45 I007
2:30 I008

2 comments:

sl said...

Gene, this looks OK, but it appears to me that there is an error in your time table. You have users scheduled for 12:45 and then 1:00 pm each day, so that there is only 15 minutes for that session. Please clarify. Also, what is your reasoning for reversing the order? I would expect that is will be less confusing if the same student comes in at the same time each day. Unless this is something that Annette feels is important, I don't think that we should do it. Do you have a sense that the teachers up there will be able to make this happen? The timing seems very precise and there's not much tolerance for delays or errors. Is it your feeling that we will just ask the students to run the course as many times as they can in the amount of time? That seems reasonable to me. How many times do you think the average student will be able to do it, considering that they need to show up, get set up, have the tasks explained, etc.

GB said...

Dona commented off the blog:
Hi Steve and everyone! Maybe I'm not picturing this right, but 45 minutes of trials seems like a very long time, even for adults, I'm having trouble imagining asking any client to work on one task for such a long time. What do you guys think? -- Dona

Gene replies:
Dona, first, there's been some corrections and tweaking of the schedule, but the 45 minute intervals remain.

The 45 minutes is not the time the task(s) will be actively performed by each subject. It's just the time slot for each child. I'd be surprised if anyone was walking the course for an entire 45 minutes. Especially the first day, but on subsequent days too, there will be communication and interaction. Also, if any subject said or looked like the time was becoming a problem, we would end that trial.

All-in-all, I don't anticipate a problem. With set up, time between trials, etc. I suspect the 45 minutes will go like a flash. Of course, I could be wrong, but we have room to further change the schedule protocol. This is an experiment, but the goal is to see basic functionality of the device, and if we needed to shorten or lengthen the time, we will. Considering your remarks, I'll be careful to attend to the issue. Thanks.