MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328027009 · doi:10.2196/44857

The Validation of Automated Social Skills Training in Members of the General Population Over 4 Weeks: Comparative Study

2023· article· en· W4328027009 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hiroki Tanaka, Takeshi Saga, Kota Iwauchi, Masato Honda, Tsubasa Morimoto, Yasuhiro Matsuda, Mitsuhiro Uratani, Kosuke Okazaki, Satoshi Nakamura

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyJapan Science and Technology AgencyJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsSocial skillsSession (web analytics)PopulationPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Nonverbal communicationApplied psychologySocial relationMedical educationComputer scienceDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social skills training by human trainers is a well-established method of teaching appropriate social and communication skills and strengthening social self-efficacy. Specifically, human social skills training is a fundamental approach to teaching and learning the rules of social interaction. However, it is cost-ineffective and offers low accessibility, since the number of professional trainers is limited. A conversational agent is a system that can communicate with a human being in a natural language. We proposed to overcome the limitations of current social skills training with conversational agents. Our system is capable of speech recognition, response selection, and speech synthesis and can also generate nonverbal behaviors. We developed a system that incorporated automated social skills training that completely adheres to the training model of Bellack et al through a conversational agent. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate the training effect of a conversational agent-based social skills training system in members of the general population during a 4-week training session. We compare 2 groups (with and without training) and hypothesize that the trained group's social skills will improve. Furthermore, this study sought to clarify the effect size for future larger-scale evaluations, including a much larger group of different social pathological phenomena. METHODS: For the experiment, 26 healthy Japanese participants were separated into 2 groups, where we hypothesized that group 1 (system trained) will make greater improvement than group 2 (nontrained). System training was done as a 4-week intervention where the participants visit the examination room every week. Each training session included social skills training with a conversational agent for 3 basic skills. We evaluated the training effect using questionnaires in pre- and posttraining evaluations. In addition to the questionnaires, we conducted a performance test that required the social cognition and expression of participants in new role-play scenarios. Blind ratings by third-party trainers were made by watching recorded role-play videos. A nonparametric Wilcoxson Rank Sum test was performed for each variable. Improvement between pre- and posttraining evaluations was used to compare the 2 groups. Moreover, we compared the statistical significance from the questionnaires and ratings between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Of the 26 recruited participants, 18 completed this experiment: 9 in group 1 and 9 in group 2. Those in group 1 achieved significant improvement in generalized self-efficacy (P=.02; effect size r=0.53). We also found a significant decrease in state anxiety presence (P=.04; r=0.49), measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). For ratings by third-party trainers, speech clarity was significantly strengthened in group 1 (P=.03; r=0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal the usefulness of the automated social skills training after a 4-week training period. This study confirms a large effect size between groups on generalized self-efficacy, state anxiety presence, and speech clarity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207