Inside pandora’s box: a systematic review of the assessment of the perceived quality of chatbots for people with disabilities or special needs

References

• Radziwill NM, Benton MC. Evaluating quality of chatbots and intelligent conversational agents. arXiv Preprint. 2017:170404579.
   Google Scholar
• Ammari T, Kaye J, Tsai JY, et al. Music, search, and IoT: how people (really) use voice assistants. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact. 2019;26:1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Beaudry J, Consigli A, Clark C, et al. Getting ready for adult healthcare: designing a chatbot to coach adolescents with special health needs through the transitions of care. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;49:85–91.
   Google Scholar
• Costa S, Brunete A, Bae BC, et al. Emotional storytelling using virtual and robotic agents. Int J Human Robot. 2018;15:1850006.
   Google Scholar
• D'mello S, Graesser A. AutoTutor and affective autotutor: learning by talking with cognitively and emotionally intelligent computers that talk back. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst. 2012;2:1–39.
   Google Scholar
• Birhane A, van Dijk J. Robot rights? Let’s talk about human welfare instead. arXiv Preprint. 2020:200105046.
   Google Scholar
• Pasquale F. A rule of persons, not machines: the limits of legal automation. Geo Wash L Rev. 2019;87:1.
   Google Scholar
• Abd-Alrazaq AA, Alajlani M, Alalwan AA, Bewick BM, et al. An overview of the features of chatbots in mental health: a scoping review. Int J Med Inf. 2019;132:103978.
   Google Scholar
• Fadhil A, Wang Y, Reiterer H. Assistive conversational agent for health coaching: a validation study. Methods Inf Med. 2019;58:9–23.
   Google Scholar
• Burke SL, Bresnahan T, Li T, et al. Using virtual interactive training agents (ViTA) with adults with autism and other developmental disabilities. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018;48:905–912.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis T, Latham NK, Deangelis TR, et al. Feasibility of a virtual exercise coach to promote walking in community-dwelling persons with Parkinson disease. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;92:472–485.
   Google Scholar
• Balaji D, Borsci S. Assessing user satisfaction with information chatbots: a preliminary investigation. University of Twente; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Tariverdiyeva G, Borsci S. Chatbots’ perceived usability in information retrieval tasks: an exploratory analysis. University of Twente; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• IBM Conversational UX. Talk meets technology – conversation design guidelines. 2018 [cited 2018 May 2]. Available from: http://conversational-ux.mybluemix.net/design/conversational-ux/practices/
   Google Scholar
• Park S, Humphry J. Exclusion by design: intersections of social, digital and data exclusion. Inf Commun Soc. 2019;22:934–953.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Borsci S. Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11:22–31.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Federici S. Why people use and don’t use technologies: Introduction to the special issue on assistive technologies for cognition/cognitive support technologies. NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37:315–319.
   Google Scholar
• Bevan N. Measuring usability as quality of use. Software Qual J. 1995;4:115–130.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JR. Usability: lessons learned … and yet to be learned. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2014;30:663–684.
   Google Scholar
• Bendig E, Erb B, Schulze-Thuesing L, et al. The next generation: chatbots in clinical psychology and psychotherapy to foster mental health – a scoping review. Verhaltenstherapie. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• ISO. ISO 9241-11:2018 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals – part 11: guidance on usability. Brussels (Belgium): CEN; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• ISO. ISO 9241-210:2010 Ergonomics of human-system interaction – part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems. Brussels (Belgium): CEN; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Federici S, Malizia A, et al. Shaking the usability tree: why usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forward. Behav Inform Technol. 2019;38:519–532.
   Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100.
   Google Scholar
• Ali MR, Razavi Z, Mamun AA, et al. A virtual conversational agent for teens with autism: experimental results and design lessons. arXiv Preprint. 2018:181103046.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron G, Cameron D, Megaw G, et al. Assessing the usability of a chatbot for mental health care. In: Bodrunova SS, Koltsova O, Følstad A, et al., editors. International Conference on Internet Science, LNCS 11551. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2018. p. 121–132.
   Google Scholar
• Konstantinidis EI, Hitoglou-Antoniadou M, Luneski A, et al. Using affective avatars and rich multimedia content for education of children with autism. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments: PETRA ‘09; 2009 Jun 9–13; New York, NY. 2009. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Lahiri U, Bekele E, Dohrmann E, et al. Design of a virtual reality based adaptive response technology for children with autism. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2013;21:55–64.
   Google Scholar
• Ly KH, Ly AM, Andersson G. A fully automated conversational agent for promoting mental well-being: a pilot RCT using mixed methods. Internet Interv. 2017;10:39–46.
   Google Scholar
• Smith MJ, Fleming MF, Wright MA, et al. Job offers to individuals with severe mental illness after participation in virtual reality job interview training. Psychiatr Serv. 2015;66:1173–1179.
   Google Scholar
• Milne M, Luerssen MH, Lewis TW, et al. Development of a virtual agent based social tutor for children with autism spectrum disorders. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks: IJCNN 2010; 2010 Jul 18–23; Barcelona, Spain. 2010. p. 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Razavi SZ, Ali MR, Smith TH, et al. The LISSA virtual human and ASD teens: an overview of initial experiments. In: Traum D, Swartout W, Khooshabeh P, et al., editors. International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2016. p. 460–463.
   Google Scholar
• Smith MJ, Ginger EJ, Wright K, et al. Virtual reality job interview training in adults with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2014;44:2450–2463.
   Google Scholar
• Smith MJ, Ginger EJ, Wright MA, et al. Virtual reality job interview training for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2014;202:659–667.
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka H, Negoro H, Iwasaka H, et al. Embodied conversational agents for multimodal automated social skills training in people with autism spectrum disorders. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0182151.
   Google Scholar
• Wargnier P, Benveniste S, Jouvelot P, et al. Usability assessment of interaction management support in LOUISE, an ECA-based user interface for elders with cognitive impairment. TAD. 2018;30:105–126.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27:425–478.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Tiberio L, Scherer MJ. Ambient assistive technology for people with dementia: an answer to the epidemiologic transition. In: Combs D, editor. New research on assistive technologies: uses and limitations. New York (NY): Nova Publishers; 2014. p. 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• IEC. IEC 62366-1:2015 medical devices – part 1: application of usability engineering to medical devices. Brussels (Belgium): CEN; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• ISO. ISO 14971:2007 medical devices – application of risk management to medical devices. Brussels (Belgium): CEN; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Buckle P, Walne S. Is the LITE version of the usability metric for user experience (UMUX-LITE) a reliable tool to support rapid assessment of new healthcare technology? Appl Ergon. 2020;84:103007.
   Google Scholar
• Wikipedia contributors. Pandora’s box. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon A. Beyond usability: process, outcome and affect in human computer interactions. Can J Inf Libr Sci. 2001;26.
   Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Federici S, Bacci S, et al. Assessing user satisfaction in the era of user experience: comparison of the SUS, UMUX and UMUX-LITE as a function of product experience. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2015;31:484–495.
   Google Scholar