No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Design Considerations for Therapeutic Devices - An Investigation of Pre-Schoolers’ Preferences for an Artefact’s Basic Characteristics
Part of:
Design for Healthcare
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Toys are children's first consumer products and while playing they acquire numerous skills, learn about their environment and socialise with other children and adults. Toys are adapted and used by clinicians as therapeutic devices because they allow them to create bonds and communicate with children. Aesthetical aspects should be considered early in the design process, especially since pre-schoolers’ views are still dominated by the appearance of artefacts, also known as, the perceptual salient characteristics. The study of emotions mediates the understanding of the relationships between a product, user and the process with which consumers set up preferences over products. Decisions taken in each design stage will influence whether therapeutic devices will be enjoyed by children. An experiment was carried out to test out pre-schoolers’ preferences on individual attributes: form, dimension, material (hardness and weight) and surface (appearance and texture). This study exposed dominant characteristic preferences and the fact that some are influenced by gender and age. Employing these findings in therapeutic devices will enable clinicians to better engage the children during therapy.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 877 - 886
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2019
References
Abeele, V. Vanden, Zaman, B. and De Grooff, D. (2012), “User eXperience Laddering with preschoolers: Unveiling attributes and benefits of cuddly toy interfaces”, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 451–465. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0408-y.Google Scholar
Andreasen, M. M., Hansen, C. T. and Cash, P. (2015), Conceptual Design. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19839-2.Google Scholar
Ashby, M. F. (1999), Materials Selection in Mechanical Design. 2nd edn., Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.Google Scholar
Balzan, E., Farrugia, P., Casha, O. and Wodehouse, A. (2018), “Evaluating the impact of design affordances in preschool children's toy preferences”, pp. 2165–2176. http://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0155.Google Scholar
Bathiche, M. E. (1993), Children's game and toy preferences: A contemporary analysis. McGill University.Google Scholar
Calvert, S. L. (2008), “Children as consumers: Advertising and marketing”, Future of Children, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 205–234. http://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0001.Google Scholar
Chien, M.-E., Jheng, C.-M., Lin, N.-M., Tang, H.-H., Taele, P., Tseng, W.-S. and Chen, M. Y. (2015), “iCAN: A tablet-based pedagogical system for improving communication skills of children with autism”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Elsevier, Vol. 73, pp. 79–90. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.06.001.Google Scholar
Correia, W., Rodrigues, L., Campos, F., Soares, M. and Barros, M. (2012), “The methodological involvement of the emotional design and cognitive ergonomics as a tool in the development of children products”, Work, Vol. 41 Suppl. 1, pp. 1066–1071. http://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0643-1066.Google Scholar
Desmet, P. M. A. and Hekkert, P. (2002), “The basis of product emotions”, Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability, pp. 60–68. http://doi.org/10.1201/9780203302279.ch4.Google Scholar
Dicarlo, C. F. (2004), “Embedding sensory preference into toys to enhance toy play in toddlers with disabilities, infants and young children”. University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. Available at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/148.Google Scholar
Dinaky, G. A. (2013), “A study on the visual effect of toy in children life”, Journal of Arts and Humanities (JAH), Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 35–45. http://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v2i5.107.Google Scholar
Dym, C. L., Wood, W. H. and Scott, M. J. (2016), “Rank ordering engineering designs: pairwise comparison charts and Borda counts”, Research in Engineering Design. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-002-0019-8.Google Scholar
Guinard, J.-X. (2001), “Sensory and consumer testing with children”, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 11, pp. 273–283. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b04557.Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M. (2010), “Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons”. Morgan and Claypool Publishers. http://doi.org/10.2200/s00261ed1v01y201003hci008.Google Scholar
Khanum, M. A. and Trivedi, M. C. (2012), “Take care: {A} study on usability evaluation methods for children”, CoRR, abs/1212.0. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0647.Google Scholar
Kierkels, J. and van den Hoven, E. (2008), “Children's haptic experiences of tangible artifacts varying in hardness”, Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction building bridges - NordiCHI ’08, p. 221. http://doi.org/10.1145/1463160.1463184.Google Scholar
Klemenović, J. (2014), “How do today's children play and with which toys?”, Croatian Journal of Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 181–200.Google Scholar
Kuther, T. L. (2019), “Physical and cognitive development in early childhood”, in Lifespan Development: Lives in Context, p. 816.Google Scholar
Markopoulos, P., Read, J., MacFarlane, S. and Hoysniemi, J. (2008), “Evaluating children's interactive roducts”, Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Morgan Kaufmann. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374111-0.00020-7.Google Scholar
Moses, L. J. and Baldwin, D. A. (2005), “Criteria for Assessing Children's Ability to Understand and Cope with Advertising”, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 186–201. Available at: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.uoregon.edu/dist/f/8769/files/2014/07/MosesBaldwin2005-2fm82vr.pdf.Google Scholar
Muller, W. (2001), Order and meaning in design. Lemma Publishers (Series in industrial design).Google Scholar
Nwokah, E., Hsu, H.-C. and Gulker, H. (2013), “The use of play materials in early intervention: The dilemma of poverty”, American Journal of Play, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 187–218.Google Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (2007), “Engineering design: a systematic approach”, PhD Proposal. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.Google Scholar
Šramová, B. (2017), “Children's consumer behavior”, Intech Open, Vol. 2, pp. 91–109. http://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69190.Google Scholar
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Snyder, P., DiCarlo, C. F., Stricklin, S. B. and Vagianos, L. A. (2002), “Comparison of within-stimulus and extra-stimulus prompts to increase targeted play behaviors in an inclusive early intervention program”, The Behavior Analyst Today, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 188–197. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0099967.Google Scholar
Yeh, M. A., Jewell, R. D. and Zamudio, C. (2018), “An investigation of age and gender differences in children's preferences underlying choice”, Young Consumers, p. YC-02-2018-00781. http://doi.org/10.1108/YC-02-2018-00781.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access