HRI trust scale
This is the most up-to-date version of this scale.
Construct Summary
The authors define the construct of trust as follows:
“The basis of trust is the information that notifies the person about the ability of the trustee to achieve specific goals [15]. Thus, the basis of trust provides the underlying characteristics used to describe and utilize the construct of trust… The basis of trust is grouped by three characteristics: performance, function, and semantics. Semantics could be separated into two categories: human and robot. Semantics in terms of the human describes a person’s understanding of the robot (or system) capabilities, task, and context. On the other hand, semantics in terms of the robot describes the robot’s understanding of the current task, environment, and the human interaction. Overall, this describes the basis of trust and reflects the goal-oriented nature of HRI.” (p. 235-236)
Rating = 77%
| Check? | Guideline Item |
|---|---|
| ✓ | Is the construct defined? |
| ✖ | Does the final version of the items capture the construct as it has been defined by the authors? |
| ✓ | Is the item generation process discussed (e.g., literature review, Delphi method, crowd-sourcing)? |
| ✖ | Person to items 10:1 for the initial set of items? |
| ✓ | Did they perform an EFA, PCA, Rasch, or similar test to determine the item to factor relationship? |
| ✓ | Did they describe how they determined number of factors? |
| ✓ | Did they report the full initial set of items? |
| ✓ | Did they provide loadings (EFA) or item fits (Rasch) of all items? |
| ✓ | Is there a description of the item removal process (e.g., using infit/outfit, factor loading minimum value, or cross-loading values)? |
| ✓ | Did they list the final number of items included in the scale? |
| ✓ | Did they include a factor structure test (e.g., second EFA, CFA, DIF, test for unidimensionality when using Rasch, or similar)? |
| ✖ | Was a measure of reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, McDonalds Omega_h or Omega_t, Tarkkonen’s Rho) reported? |
| ✓ | Was a test of validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, discriminant) reported? |
Comments None
Reviewed by Experts ✓
Downloads
PAPER
Yagoda, R. E., & Gillan, D. J. (2012). You want me to trust a ROBOT? The development of a human–robot interaction trust scale. International Journal of Social Robotics, 4, 235-248.
click here to access a blank scale
PDF of instructions for administration and score not readily available. Check the paper for more details or click here to submit this information if you are the author of this scale.
Final Scale Items (36 total):
The operator is dependable.
The human team member is dependable.
The supervisor is dependable.
The subject matter expert provides expertise.
Team communication is reliable.
Team coordination is dependable.
Team dynamics are reliable.
Team situational awareness is dependable.
Team decision making is dependable.
Team planning is dependable.
Team replanning is dependable.
Team backup is reliable.
Team leadership is accessible.
The operation is reliable.
The task is reliable.
The physical environment is reliable.
The social environment is reliable.
My previous task knowledge is dependable.
My previous human team member experience is dependable.
My previous physical environment experience is reliable.
My previous system knowledge is reliable.
My skills require for the task are dependable.
My task allocation is reliable.
The task objectives are reliable.
The difficulty of the task is reliable.
The task feedback is dependable.
Task feedback from my human team members is timely.
Task feedback from the physical environment is timely.
Task feedback from the overall system is reliable.
The user interface is reliable.
The sensor data is dependable.
The navigation capabilies are consistent.
The signal/bandiwdth is dependable.
The end effectors are reliable. The remote information processing is timely.
The level of automation is reliable.
The type of control is reliable.