Older Adults Testing Assistive Technologies in Living Labs:

Guidelines

Stephanie Lehmann

, Esther Ruf and Sabina Misoch

Institute for Ageing Research, FHS St. Gallen University of Applied Sciences,

Rosenbergstrasse 59, 9001 St. Gallen, Switzerland

Keywords: Older Adults, Living Lab, Assistive Technology, Testing, Guideline.

Abstract: Assistive technologies are a promising option for enabling older adults to live independently at home and

therefore to meet the challenges of demographic change. An advantageous way to ensure acceptance and

successful use by end users is a participatory involvement and testing in real-life environment. This position

paper argues for the specific approach of Living Lab testings when testing assistive technologies with older

adults at home. The procedure described is intended as a guideline to adequately consider the specifics of the

test subjects, the older adults, and the special test setting in the real-life environment. Therefore, the guideline

contributes to the quality of future testings.

1 INTRODUCTION

Due to demographic change, caused by the increase

in life expectancy as well as the decline in the birth

rate, the proportion of people aged 65 or over is

steadily increasing in all industrialised countries

(Vaupel, 2000), and due to the increasing number of

people in need of assistance, the effects of the

shortage of nursing staff (Afentakis and Maier, 2010;

Mercay, Burla and Widmer, 2016) will become even

worse. To live at home independently for as long as

possible is preferred by many older adults (Hedtke-

Becker, Hoevels, Otto, Stumpp and Beck, 2012;

Marek and Rantz, 2000), and, apart from a hoped-for

cost saving, it has positive effects on their quality of

life (Sixsmith and Gutmann, 2013).

Assistive technologies have great potential to

meet these challenges. However, many developed

assistive technologies are not satisfactorily used to

support older adults due to lack of acceptance and

other barriers (Pelizäus-Hoffmeister, Birken,

Schweiger and Sontheimer, 2018). Good acceptance

and successful application to generate benefits

requires testing of assistive technologies in a real-

world environment. With that, fear of contact can be

reduced, assistive technologies can be adapted to

actual needs and support can be provided locally

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1086-3075

where it is needed (Liedtke, Welfens, Rohn and

Nordmann, 2012; Pauli, Lehmann and Misoch,

2017a). A promising way to ensure acceptance and

benefits of assistive technologies for older adults is

the participatory involvement of end users and the

testing of these technologies in their real-life

environment. This can be realized within the

framework of Living Labs.

A Living Lab is to be understood as an

infrastructure which enables a user-centered research

methodology (Eriksson, Niitamo and Kulkki, 2005),

whereby users are observed in their interaction with

new technologies. In this position paper, according to

the European view (Schuurman, Evens and De

Marez, 2009), a Living Lab is understood to be the

real, domestic, everyday (living) environment of

users as a testing environment for assistive

technologies (European Network of Living Labs,

2019; Folstad, 2008; Franz, 2014; Lehmann,

Hämmerle, Pauli and Misoch, 2019). The central

focus is on the end user ("user-centred") and the real-

world context is a precondition (Bergvall-Kareborn &

Stahlbröst, 2009; Dell'Era and Landoni, 2014;

Liedtke et al., 2012).

When working with test subjects 65+ and test in

their natural living environment, there are some

special aspects to consider. Conducting studies with

persons must meet the criteria of good research

Lehmann, S., Ruf, E. and Misoch, S.

Older Adults Testing Assistive Technologies in Living Labs: Guidelines.

DOI: 10.5220/0009464100850092

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health (ICT4AWE 2020), pages 85-92

ISBN: 978-989-758-420-6

practice (e.g. guideline "Securing Good Scientific

Practice", Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 2013;

"European Code of Conduct for Integrity in

Research", ALLEA, 2018). But the elements of the

research process must be adapted to the Living Lab

setting and to the target group 65+ and researchers

must be familiar with the special features of this

group (Turnwald, Frerichs and Prilla, 2011).

2 AIM

The key points presented in the position paper have

been developed and tested within the framework of

various projects of the Institute for Ageing Research.

The procedure is suggested as a guideline to support

further research projects and to contribute to an

internal quality control of testings involving people

65+ testing assistive technologies in Living Labs at

home. The recommendations were elaborated in the

context of the IBH Living Lab Active & Assisted

Living consisting of research institutions, care and

nursing facilities as well as technology and service

providers in the Lake Constance region from Austria,

Germany, and Switzerland. The project is funded by

the Interreg V-programme “Alphenrhein-Bodensee-

Hochrhein”.

3 RECRUITMENT–

ACQUISITION OF TEST

SUBJECTS

The selection of suitable test subjects is essential in

Living Lab testing. For technical and organisational

reasons, the number of test subjects in Living Lab

testing is limited (Scherhaufer and Grüneis, 2015), so

that the samples are usually small but time-

consuming to supervise.

As recruiting suitable Living Lab test subjects can

be time-consuming, enough time must be planned for

this phase. Recruiting tests subjects 65+ can be

difficult as the older population group is highly

inhomogeneous (Doyle, Bailey, Scanaill and van den

Berg, 2014; Yang and Lee, 2010). In addition, a

higher dropout rate is to be expected due to increased

morbidity and mortality in persons 65+ (Hoag, 1981;

Menning, 2006). Test subjects must be willing to test

assistive technology in their natural living

environment for a predefined time and be willing and

able to communicate their experiences (Ogonowski,

Ley, Hess, Wan and Wulf, 2013). In order to test

assistive technologies in the real-life environment of

the end users, these must also be willing to invite

researchers and technicians into their homes several

times and accept to integrate a new assistive

technology into their personal interior design.

3.1 Selection of Test Subjects

Selection of test subjects is guided by the research

question and the development-stage the assistive

technology is at. If the usability of the assistive

technology is investigated and initial testing of the

assistive technology (e.g. a prototype) is done with

the aim of discovering possible problems, a smaller,

rather heterogeneously composed sample is chosen

(Nielsen, 2012; Pauli et al., 2017a). The resulting

range of age, affinity for technology, socio-economic

and cultural background should take different

perspectives into consideration. If proof of

effectiveness of the assistive technology is to be

investigated, the sample should be representative of

future users. The goal is not population

representativeness, but to include persons relevant to

the research subject (Kelle and Kluge, 2010). This

can refer to socio-demographic variables as well as

individual aspects of physical or psychological

impairments to get enough test cases. For example,

testing a fall sensor with people who are not at risk of

falling is hardly meaningful, as it cannot be assumed

that the system can be tested at all.

When describing the sample, inclusion and

exclusion criteria must be stated. A basic description

of sociodemographic variables (age, gender,

educational level, etc.) should be provided. If

possible, variables should be collected that are

already known for the general population or target

group through population-based or other

representative studies in order to estimate

representativeness, when this is crucial for

interpretation (Von Geibler et al., 2013). In addition,

specific characteristics of the test subjects in relation

to the research goal must be collected. In order to be

able to compare different Living Lab testings, it is

useful to collect a so-called core data set, e.g. gender,

age, nationality, language, marital status, educational

level, type of housing, household size, residential

area, physical and mental restrictions, technical

experience, existing technical equipment, previous

test experience, user group (primary users are end

users; secondary users are relatives or professional

carers; tertiary users are organizations, communities).

These data can be used for secondary analyses, but

only if prior consent has been obtained.

ICT4AWE 2020 - 6th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health

3.2 Recruitment Strategy

The recruitment strategy should be described and

justified in detail at the beginning of the study.

Selective samples can be the result of a specific

recruitment strategy. Often well-integrated, educated

and technology-oriented people are recruited

(Classen, Oswald, Doh, Kleinemas and Wahl, 2014;

Hämmerle, Pauli, Lehmann and Misoch, 2018;

Kubiak, 2015; Lehmann, Pauli and Misoch, 2017)

and further participants recruited via multipliers will

have a similar social status. The recruitment of older

adults for testing of assistive technology is

particularly susceptible to bias e.g. selection bias

(Kleist, 2010), and especially to volunteer bias that

can lead to a non-representative sample (Lehmann et

al., 2017; Von Unger, 2014). In their overview,

Rosenthal and Rosnow (1975) stated that volunteer

test subjects are more likely to be women and more

highly educated. In contrast, experience in testing

assistive technologies shows that men and/or people

with an affinity for technology are more likely to

participate. Experience also shows that people with a

lower educational level or migration background are

usually difficult to reach and motivate (Pauli, Misoch

and Lehmann, 2017b). To be able to interpret the test

results, a description of the procedure and recruitment

strategy is extremely important. Some participatory

research projects offer approaches on how to deal

with this, e.g. by showing test subjects the relevance

of their contribution (Hackl, 2014), or by

emphasizing their "profit" in sense of a direct benefit

(Scherhaufer and Grüneis, 2015).

Recruitment can be done via groups in which

older adults are organised, which work with older

adults, or in which they are overrepresented. For

example, educational institutes for older adults,

community services for older adults, senior citizens'

meetings, senior citizens' representatives at regional

or local level, church associations, social networks or

media such as newspapers or radio (Eisma,

Dickinson, Goodman, Syme, Tiwari and Newell,

2004; Ogonogwski et al., 2013). Recruitment via test

subjects who already recommend the testing to others

and thus act as multipliers is very promising (Hess

and Ogonowski, 2010; Leonardi, Doppio, Lepri,

Zancanaro, Caraviello and Pianesi, 2014; Ogonowski

et al., 2013; Pauli et al., 2017a).

3.3 Recruitment Interview

One interview changes the daily routine of a test

person (Misoch, 2019; Porst and Briel, 1995). Testing

in the daily living environment of the end user

additionally entails an intrusion into the privacy of the

test subjects, which is why sensitive relationship

building is essential for Living Lab testing

(Ogonowski et al., 2013). At least one (recruitment)

interview with the interested person should take place

prior to test enrolment in order to gather socio-

demographic data and needs and to establish a first

personal contact (ibid.). A personal interview and a

visit to the private or institutional residential

environment (Hämmerle et al., 2018) is preferable to

contact by telephone (Ogonowski et al., 2013).

However, since Living Labs usually require large

amounts of time and financial resources (Schuurman

et al., 2009), this is not always possible.

The recruitment interview forms the basis of

successful recruitment. The information and consent

of the test persons should be understood as a

communicative action process that starts even before

the actual consent (Schweizerische Akademie der

Medizinischen Wissenschaften [SAMW], 2015). The

process of information and consent should be fair and

characterized by dialogue, so that people become

aware of what participation in the testing means

(ibid.) In the target group 65+, special attention

should be paid to preparation and sufficient time

resources for the interview.

During the recruitment interview, the end users

must be informed about the general conditions of the

testing, the aim of the testing and the requirements.

Test subjects highly appreciate accurate and detailed

information about the course of the testing (Meurer,

Stein and Stevens, 2013). This verbal information

should be recorded in a written test information

document, in accordance with the rules and templates

of the respective national or regional ethics

commissions, with details of the objective, duration,

procedure, rights, obligations, voluntary nature,

benefits, risks, possibilities of discontinuation,

confidentiality, compensation, liability, assurance of

data protection, financing and contact persons. This is

required by the ethics committees and strengthens the

commitment of the test subjects.

Should a test subject not wish to participate, the

reasons should be clarified as detailed as possible. It

should be determined what the concerns are in order

to be able to make statements about the group of non-

participants, and to understand the motivation for

participation (Meurer et al., 2013). If possible, the

group of non-participants (e.g. persons not reached,

persons inquired about, or persons who left after the

recruitment interview) and the reasons for not taking

part should be described. The proportion of non-

participants should be indicated, and these data

should be considered when interpreting the results

Older Adults Testing Assistive Technologies in Living Labs: Guidelines

(Kleist, 2010). It can be assumed that the response

behaviour of participants and non-participants differs

(Groves, 1989; Koch and Blohm, 2015) and can thus

influence validity and reliability (Haunberger, 2011).

In some cases, concerns can be clarified,

intercepted and even eliminated in a recruitment

interview. It is important to address the expectations

of the test persons. If unrealistic expectations are

mentioned by the test persons, they should be

corrected in order to avoid subsequent dropouts. Test

subjects must be able to decide to take part in the

testing voluntarily and without any pressure (König,

2011), as well as having the option to terminate

participation at any time without any disadvantages.

3.4 Informed Consent

The written consent of the test subject at the

beginning of the test phase is indispensable (Gebel et

al., 2015). It must be written in accordance with

national ethical guidelines and regulations and

communicated to the test persons in an

understandable way.

For test persons 65+, special attention must be

paid to the formal design of the written consent form.

Attention should be paid to layout, understandable

language and brevity, without neglecting the correct

factual content. Guidelines on wording are usually

provided by national ethics committees or

professional associations. For the group of older test

subjects as well as for particularly limited test

subjects, it is also advisable to follow scientific

recommendations for layout as well as formulation of

questions and instructions (Brandt et al., 2018; Lang,

2014).

3.5 Data Handling / Data Protection

In order to ensure the anonymous evaluation and use

of personal data, each test person is assigned a

specific code which links individual data with each

other but gives no indication of the test person

(König, 2011). Only with a separate file, a so-called

code list, collected data can be linked with the

personal data. This code list is to be stored separately

and independently from other (personal) data (König,

2011).

The currently valid basic data protection

regulation is valid throughout Europe and should be

complied with (Akiki, 2019). Data protection and

data security must be observed (Bölscher, 2000;

Epiney, Civitella and Zbinden, 2009; Federrath and

Pfitzmann, 2000; Kühling, Klar and Sackmann, 2018;

SAMW, 2015). Test subjects must be informed of the

contents and procedures and must be given written

assurance that their data (interviews, questionnaires,

technical data) will be treated confidentially. To

protect the privacy of the test subjects, their addresses

will never be passed on to third parties without their

explicit approval. Wherever possible, contact will

only be made via the assigned researcher (Hämmerle

et al., 2018).

4 IMPLEMENTATION– DATA

COLLECTION AND SUPPORT

4.1 Economy of Data Collection

Economic test procedures with a reasonable test

duration should be selected and breaks should be

considered. The researchers in the field should be

familiar with the respective dialects so that the test

subjects can speak in their usual language. Situational

factors should be considered (Kothgassner and

Bertacco, 2011), for example, the test atmosphere

should be made pleasant by eliminating sources of

interference (such as conversations from other

people) and allowing enough time (Felnhofer,

Kothgassner, Hauk, Kastenhofer and Kryspin-Exner,

2013).

4.2 Relationship Building / Trust

At the beginning of the testing, the focus is on

building up a trusting relationship (Ogonowski et al.,

2013), which starts with the initial contact and

enables a long-term commitment. Social skills are

needed for building relationships both among

researchers and test subjects. Establishing a

motivating atmosphere and close interaction with the

test subjects is seen as essential for the success of the

research (Eisma et al., 2004). Regular contact shows

an appreciative attitude towards the test subjects,

enables to address concerns, take statements seriously

(Pauli et al., 2017a), and recognize difficulties at an

early stage. By including all statements, even when

not relevant to the testing, a good feeling is conveyed

(Ogonowski et al., 2013). Researchers should achieve

reciprocity (Smith, 2013) by telling something about

themselves. A relationship based on trust requires a

clearly defined contact person whose tasks and

functions are transparent and who remains the same

throughout the testing, if possible (Georges,

Schuurman, Baccarne and Coorevits, 2015; Hess and

Ogonowski, 2010; Ogonowski et al., 2013). This

proves to be very important especially for people 65+.

ICT4AWE 2020 - 6th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health

Efficient complaint management must be ensured by

a clear contact person for problems and questions. It

also makes sense to inform test subjects regularly

about the status of the testing, for example by a

newsletter (Ogonowski et al., 2013).

To establish trust, as many individual areas as

possible should be considered (Smith, 2013). For

example, trust in the institution itself, in the software

used, in the individual researchers or in other test

subjects. As trust usually comes through many small

steps, trust in the individual areas can again be

ensured or demonstrated by various factors. For

example, the qualifications of the researchers or their

reputation can be a condition for trust in them.

4.3 Motivation

In order to avoid dropouts, motivation must be

maintained throughout the entire test period, which

can last several months (Smith, 2013). Motivation

depends largely on the expectations of the test

subjects (Meurer et al., 2013) and the reliability of the

research team, which is why the expectations and the

reliability should be actively managed (Ogonowski et

al., 2013). People who have decided to participate are

usually impatient and want to start testing a new

assistive technology immediately (Hess and

Ogonowski, 2010). In order to avoid disappointment

and a lack of motivation, particularly regarding

prototypes that are not yet marketable, it is essential

to communicate clearly what can be expected from

the assistive technology at the respective stage of

development (Georges et al., 2015). Unrealistic

announcements regarding the use of the assistive

technology should be avoided, and longer time

horizons should be preferred.

In general, intrinsic motivation, such as general

interest or the desire to learn something, seems to be

more relevant than extrinsic motivation (Leonardi et

al., 2014). This is why social activities are important

for strengthening the sense of community. A financial

incentive to participate does not seem necessary

(Hess and Ogonowski, 2010; Leonardi et al., 2014)

and is also undesirable in research projects due to

selection mechanisms. Otherwise, there would be the

possibility that financially poor people would

participate only because of the financial incentive

(Grün and Haefeli, 2009) and possible risks would not

be sufficiently considered by them (Denny and

Grady, 2007). Moreover, it could lead to an

overrepresentation of people with financially weaker

resources.

4.4 Building a Sense of Community

Real-life meetings, where the test persons can meet

other test subjects, the entire testing team and other

stakeholders, have proven to be a good way to create

a sense of community (Ogonowski et al., 2013; Pauli

et al., 2017a) and increase commitment (Hämmerle et

al., 2018). Aims should be: Community feeling,

exchange among test subjects and with the testing

team, information about the testing, presentation of

results, and the collection of opinions and emotional

situation of the test subjects (Hämmerle et al., 2018).

As in the entire research project, voluntariness is

essential (SAMW, 2015). There should be enough

time for informal exchange (Ogonowski et al., 2013).

As an alternative to the real, very resource-intensive

meetings, a virtual forum can be offered on a

homepage so that test subjects can support each other,

and the researchers are thus relieved (Ogonowski et

al., 2013).

4.5 Involvement of Other Stakeholders

In addition to the primary users (end users), other

stakeholders such as secondary users (relatives or

professionals and service organisations), tertiary

users (politics or institutions) and research or industry

partners must be considered. The participation of

these different user groups and stakeholders can be

very challenging, as different interests and objectives

collide, which cannot always be satisfactorily

considered (Ogonowski et al., 2013).

5 COMPLETION –

TERMINATION OF TESTING

5.1 Dealing with Dropouts

Several factors can cause test subjects to drop out

(Georges, Schuurman and Vervoort, 2016). As the

probability of dropouts is high, particularly due to

rapidly changing (health) conditions of older adults

(Hämmerle et al., 2018; Hoag, 1981), dealing with

dropouts at the beginning of the testing is essential.

As Living Lab testing takes a long time, it is

necessary to define the procedure to be followed

when a dropout occurs, how to handle the data

collected so far, and the possibility of re-recruitment.

With the consent of the test subject, the data collected

so far should continue to be available for analysis. Re-

recruitment does not necessarily have to take place.

However, depending on the research question and

Older Adults Testing Assistive Technologies in Living Labs: Guidelines

assistive technology, it should be examined whether

the number of test subjects is still sufficient to answer

the research question.

5.2 Exit Strategy and Compensation

An exit strategy at the end of the testing regarding the

termination of testing and whereabouts of the

assistive technology should be defined at the

beginning of the testing. The assistive technology

may be given to the subjects free of charge, sold to

them at a preferential price, or can be removed.

Compensation can also be defined as part of the exit

strategy. However, the compensation does not have to

be in financial form, as non-monetary motivated

participation seems to work in general (Hess and

Ogonowski, 2010; Leonardi et al., 2014). Experience

from own testings shows that "compensation" by

offering a social event (e.g. a final event with all test

subjects and the researchers) is valued by the test

subjects.

5.3 Feedback of Test Results

If possible, the testing results should be

communicated to all test subjects in an adequate form

(Hämmerle et al., 2018; SAMW, 2015, Chapter 10).

The form in which this takes place should be

communicated early on.

6 CONCLUSIONS

The position paper argues that special considerations

and requirements are needed when dealing with older

adults as test subjects in Living Labs at home and

summarizes the experiences gained so far. It can serve

as a guideline to secure the planning and

implementation of Living Lab studies at home with

older adults qualitatively. The contact with the test

subjects is divided into three phases and enables other

researchers to find answers to relevant topics quickly.

It would be desirable, in the sense of quality

assurance, that future Living Lab testings, especially

with older adults in their homes, are based on these

recommendations.

REFERENCES

Afentakis, A. and Maier, T., 2010. Projektionen des

Personalbedarfs und -angebots in Pflegeberufen bis

2025. In Statistisches Bundesamt (Eds.), Statistisches

Bundesamt Wirtschaft und Statistik. (pp. 990-1002).

Wiesbaden: HGV Hanseatische Gesellschaft für

Verlagsservice mbH.

Akiki, P., 2019. Datenschutz: Die globalen Auswirkungen

der neuen Bestimmungen. Retrieved April 3, 2019,

from https://www.pwc.ch/de/insights/

finanzdienstleistungen/datenschutz-globale-

auswirkungen.html

ALLEA - All European Academies, 2018. Europäischer

Verhaltenskodex für Integrität in der Forschung

Überarbeitete Fassung. Berlin: ALLEA – All European

Academies. Retrieved July 24, 2019, from https://

www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/06/ALLEA-

European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-

2017-Digital_DE_FINAL.pdf

Bergvall-Kareborn, B., & Stahbröst, A. (2009). Living lab:

an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation.

International Journal of Innovation and Regional

Development, 1(4), 356-370.

Bölscher, J., 2000. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit bei

gesundheitsökonomischen Studien. In Schöffski, O.

and Graf von der Schulenburg, J.-M. (Eds.),

Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluationen (pp. 231-243).

Berlin: Springer.

Brandt, M., Fietz, J., Hampel, S., Kaschowitz, J., Lazarevic,

P., Reichert, M. and Wolter, V., 2018. Methoden der

empirischen Alter(n)sforschung. Weinheim: Beltz.

Classen, K., Oswald, F., Doh, M., Kleinemas, U. and Wahl,

H.-W., 2014. Umwelten des Alterns: Wohnen,

Mobilität, Technik und Medien. Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer.

Dell’Era, C. and Landoni, P., 2014. Living Lab: A

methodology between user-centered design and

participatory design. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 23(2), 137-154.

Denny, C. C. and Grady, C., 2007. Clinical research with

economically disadvantaged populations. Journal of

Medical Ethics, 33(7), 382-385.

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 2013. Sicherung guter

wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Denkschrift. Weinheim:

WILEY-VCH Verlag. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from

https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden

_stellungnahmen/download/empfehlung_wiss_praxis_

1310.pdf

Doyle, J., Bailey, C., Scanaill, C. N. and van den Berg, F.,

2014. Lessons learned in deploying independent living

technologies to older adults’ homes. Universal Access

in the Information Society, 13(2), 191-204.

Eisma, R., Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Syme, A., Tiwari,

L. and Newell, A., 2004. Early user involvement in the

development of information technology-related

products for older people. Universal Access in the

Information Society, 3(2), 131–140.

European Network of Living Labs, 2019. What are Living

Labs. Brüssel: ENoLL. Retrieved July 29, 2019, from

https://enoll.org/about-us/

Epiney, A., Civitella, T. and Zbinden, P., 2009.

Datenschutzrecht in der Schweiz. Eine Einführung in

das Datenschutzgesetzt des Bundes, mit besonderem

Akzent auf den für Bundesorgane relevanten Vorgaben.

ICT4AWE 2020 - 6th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health

Freiburger Schriften zum Europarecht Nr. 10.

Fribourg: Institut für Europarecht.

Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.-P. and Kulkki, S., 2005. State-

of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-

centric ICT innovation – a European approach. Lulea,

Schweden: Center for Distance-spanning Technology,

Lulea University of Technology.

Federrath, H. and Pfitzmann, A., 2000. Datenschutz und

Datensicherheit. In Schneider, U. and Werner, D.

(Eds.), Taschenbuch der Informatik, 3. Auflage (pp.

586-164). München: Fachbuchverlag Leipzig im Carl

Hanser Verlag.

Felnhofer, A., Kothgassner, O. D., Hauk, N., Kastenhofer,

E. and Kryspin-Exner, I., 2013. Ethik-Checkliste zur

Evaluation ethischer Aspekte von Studien im Bereich

neuer Technologien unter Berücksichtigung älterer

Menschen. Wien: University of Vienna, ICARUS

Research Team.

Folstad, A., 2008. Living labs for innovation and

development of information and communication

technology: A literature review. Electronic Journal of

Organizational Virtualness, 10, 99-131.

Franz, Y., 2014. Chances and challenges for social urban

living labs in urban research. Konferenzbeitrag

präsentiert an der Tagung ENoLL OpenLivingLab

Days. Amsterdam, Niederlande, 02.-05. September

2014.

Gebel, T., Grenzer, M., Kreusch, J., Liebig, S., Schuster,

H., Tscherwinka, R., Watteler, O. and Witzel, A., 2015.

Verboten ist, was nicht ausdrücklich erlaubt ist:

Datenschutz in qualitativen Interviews. Forum:

Qualitative Sozialforschung, 16(2), Art. 27.

Georges, A., Schuurman, D., Baccarne, B. and Coorevits,

L., 2015. User engagement in living lab field trials.

Info, 17(4), 26-39.

Georges, A., Schuurman, D. and Vervoort, K., 2016.

Factors affecting the attrition of test users during living

lab field trials. Technology Innovation Management

Review, 6(1), 35–44.

Groves, R. M., 1989. Survey errors and survey costs. New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

Grün, B. and Haefeli, W. E., 2009. Die richtige

Rekrutierung von Studienteilnehmern.

Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung –

Gesundheitsschutz, 52(4), 402-409.

Hackl, M., 2014. Methoden partizipativer

Forschungsprojekte mit Jugendlichen. Broschüre.

Wien: Österreichisches Institut für Kinderrechte und

Elternbildung.

Haunberger, S., 2011. Teilnahmeverweigerung in

Panelstudien. Wiesbaden: Springer.

Hämmerle, V., Pauli, C., Lehmann, S. and Misoch, S.,

2018. Living Lab 65+. Senioren/innen testen technische

Assistenzsysteme in ihrer häuslichen Umgebung. In

Weidner, R. and Karafillidis, A. (Eds.), Technische

Unterstützungssysteme, die die Menschen wirklich

wollen (pp. 33-40). Hamburg: Konferenzband.

Hedtke-Becker, A., Hoevels, R., Otto, U., Stumpp, G. and

Beck, S., 2012. Zu Hause wohnen wollen bis zuletzt. In

Pohlmann, S. (Ed.), Altern mit Zukunft (pp. 141-176).

Wiesbaden: Springer.

Hess, J. and Ogonowski, C., 2010. Steps toward a living lab

for socialmedia concept evaluation and continuous

user-involvement. Konferenzbeitrag präsentiert an der

Tagung EuroITV’10, 8th European Conference on

Interactive TV and Video. Tampere, Finnland, 09.-11.

Juni 2010.

Hoag, W. J., 1981. Realisierte Stichproben bei Panels: Eine

vergleichende Analyse. ZUMA Nachrichten, 5(9), 6-18.

Kleist, P., 2010. Bias in Beobachtungsstudien. Swiss

Medical Forum, 10(35), 580-583.

Kelle, U. and Kluge, S., 2010. Vom Einzelfall zum Typus.

Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der

qualitativen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag

für Sozialwissenschaften.

Koch, A. and Blohm, M., 2015. Nonresponse Bias (Version

1.1). (GESIS Survey Guidelines). Mannheim: GESIS –

Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:

10.15465/gesis-sg_004

Kothgassner, O. D. and Bertacco, M., 2011. Ethische

Prinzipien in der (klinisch-) psychologischen

Diagnostik. In Felnhofer, A., Kothgassner, O. D. and

Kryspin-Exner, I. (Eds.) Ethik in der Psychologie (pp.

217-231). Wien: facultas.wuv.

König, D., 2011. Good Scientific Practice: Planung und

Durchführung psychologischer Studien. In Felnhofer,

A., Kothgassner, O. D. and Kryspin-Exner, I. (Eds.),

Ethik in der Psychologie (pp. 70-79). Wien:

facultas.wuv.

Kubiak, M., 2015. Ist Beteiligung immer gut und sinnvoll?

Partizipation und/oder politische Gleichheit. Impu!se,

88, 4-5.

Kühling, J., Klar, M. and Sackmann, F., 2018.

Datenschutzrecht. 4. Auflage. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller.

Lang, G., 2014. Zur Befragung und Befragbarkeit von

kognitiv eingeschränkten und demenziell veränderten

Menschen in Altern- und Pflegeheimen. In Amann, A.

and Kolland, F. (Eds.), Das erzwungene Paradies des

Alters? Weitere Fragen an eine Kritische Gerontologie

(pp. 207-215). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Lehmann, S., Hämmerle, V., Pauli, C. and Misoch, S.,

2019. Partizipative Testung assistiver Technik. Das

Konzept der Living Labs 65+ des IKOA-FHS. In

Friedrich, P. and Fuchs, D. (Eds.), 6. Ambient Medicine

Forum. Assistive Technik für selbstbestimmtes Wohnen

(pp. 103-107). Göttingen: Cuvillier.

Lehmann, S, Pauli, C. and Misoch, S., 2017. Partizipative

Forschung auf höchster Stufe: Seniorinnen und

Senioren beforschen ihre eigene Altersgruppe.

eNewsletter Wegweiser Bürgergesellschaft 12/2017.

Retrieved December 20, 2017, from

https://www.buergergesellschaft.de/fileadmin/pdf/gast

beitrag_lehmann_etal_171220.pdf

Leonardi, C., Doppio, N., Lepri, B., Zancanaro, M.,

Caraviello, M. and Pianesi, F., 2014. Exploring long-

term participation within a living lab: satisfaction,

motivations and expectations. Konferenzbeitrag

präsentiert an der Tagung 8th Nordic Conference on

Older Adults Testing Assistive Technologies in Living Labs: Guidelines

Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational.

Helsinki, Finnland, 26.–30. Oktober 2014.

Liedtke, C., Welfens, M. J., Rohn, H. and Nordmann, J.,

2012. LIVING LAB: user-driven innovation for

sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in

Higher Education, 13(2), 106-118.

Marek, K. D. and Rantz, M. J., 2000. Ageing in place: a

new model for long-term care. Nursing Administration

Quarterly, 24(3), 1-11.

Menning, S., 2006. Lebenserwartung, Mortalität und

Morbidität im Alter. (Report Altersdaten, 1/2006).

Berlin: Deutsches Zentrum für Altersfragen.

Mercay, C., Burla, L. and Widmer, M., 2016.

Gesundheitspersonal in der Schweiz.

Bestandesaufnahme und Prognosen bis 2030. Obsan

Bericht 71. Neuchâtel: Schweizerisches

Gesundheitsobservatorium.

Meurer, J., Stein, M. and Stevens, G., 2013. Living Labs

zur Gestaltung innovativer Mobilitätskonzepte für

ältere Menschen. In Boll, S., Maass, S. and Malaka, R.

(Eds.), Mensch & Computer 2013 – Workshopband. 13.

fachübergreifende Konferenz für interaktive und

kooperative Medien (pp. 95-102). München:

Oldenbourg Verlag.

Misoch, S., 2019. Qualitative Interviews. 2. erweiterte und

aktualisierte Auflage. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.

Nielsen, J., 2012. How many test users in a usability study?

NN/g Nielsen Norman Group. Retrieved July 29, 2019,

from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-

test-users/

Ogonowski, C., Ley, B., Hess, J., Wan, L. and Wulf, V.,

2013. Designing for the living room: long-term user

involvement in a living lab. Konferenzbeitrag

präsentiert an der Tagung SIGCHI Conference on

Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paris,

Frankreich, 27. April–02. Mai 2013.

Pauli, C. Lehmann, S. and Misoch, S., 2017a.

AALivingLab@home – Aufbau einer natürlichen

Testumgebung für AAL-Innovationen in der

Ostschweiz. In Kempter, G. and Hämmerle, I. (Eds.),

Beiträge zum Usability Day XV.

Umgebungsunterstütztes Leben (pp. 70-75). Lengerich:

Pabst.

Pauli, C., Misoch, S. and Lehmann, S., 2017b.

AALivingLab@home – Aufbau einer natürlichen

Testumgebung für AAL-Innovationen in der

Ostschweiz. In Orcioni, S., Conti, M. and Rodriguez de

Trujillo, E. (Eds.), Smart-Future-Living-Bodensee (pp.

41-43). Konstanz: Tagungsband.

Pelizäus-Hoffmeister, H., Birken, T., Schweiger, P. and

Sontheimer, R., 2018. Technik für ein selbstbestimmtes

Leben im Alter: eine Forschungsstrategie zur

kontextintegrierenden und praxiszentrierten

Bedarfsanalyse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(1), 1-28.

Porst, R. and von Briel, C., 1995. Wären Sie vielleicht

bereit, sich gegebenenfalls noch einmal befragen zu

lassen? Oder: Gründe für die Teilnahme an

Panelbefragungen. Arbeitspapier ZUMA-

Arbeitsbericht, 1995/04. Zentrum für Umfragen,

Methoden und Analysen-ZUMA-. Retrieved July 29,

2019, from file:///C:/Users/les/Downloads/ssoar-1995-

porst_et_al-waren_sie_vielleicht_bereit.pdf

Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. L., 1975. The volunteer

subject. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen

Wissenschaften [SAMW], 2015. Forschung mit

Menschen. Ein Leitfaden für die Praxis. Bern: SAMW.

Retrieved July 30, 2019, from https://swissethics.ch/

doc/swissethics/manual_research_nov2015_d.pdf

Scherhaufer, P. and Grüneis, H., 2015. Herausforderungen

und Grenzen partizipativer Projektarbeit: zwei

Beispiele aus der transdisziplinären

Klimawandelanpassungsforschung und erste

Lösungsansätze. Diskussionspapier / Institut für Wald-

, Umwelt- und Ressourcenpolitik, 1-2015. Wien:

Universität für Bodenkultur (BOKU), Institut für Wald-

, Umwelt- und Ressourcenpolitik.

Schuurman, D., Evens, T. and De Marez, L., 2009. A living

lab research approach for mobile TV. Konferenzbeitrag

präsentiert an der Tagung 7th European Conference on

Interactive TV and Video. Leuven, Belgien, 03–05.

Juni 2009.

Sixsmith, A. and Gutmann, G., 2013. Technologies for

active aging. New York: Springer.

Smith, C. L., 2013. Factors affecting conditions of trust in

participant recruiting and retention: A position paper.

Konferenzbeitrag präsentiert an der Tagung 2013

workshop on Living labs for information retrieval

evaluation (LivingLab’13). San Francisco, USA, 01.

November 2013.

Turnwald, M., Frerichs, A. and Prilla, M., 2011. Usability

Testing für und mit Senioren. In Brau, H., Lehmann, A.,

Petrovic, K. and Schroeder, M. C. (Eds.), Usability

Professionals 2011 – Tagungsband (pp. 216-220).

Stuttgart: German UPA e.V..

Vaupel, J., 2000. Setting the stage: A generation of

centenarians? The Washington Quarterly, 23(3), 195-

200.

Von Geibler, J., Erdmann, L, Liedtke, C., Rohn, H., Stabe,

M., Berner, S., Jordan, N. D. Leismann, K., Schnalzer,

K., Greiff, K. and Wirtz, M., 2013. Living Labs für

nachhaltige Entwicklung: Potenziale einer

Forschungsinfrastruktur zur Nutzerintegration in der

Entwicklung von Produkten und Dienstleistungen.

Research Report. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Spezial,

Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie.

Von Unger, H., 2014. Partizipative Forschung. Einführung

in die Forschungspraxis. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Yang, Y. and Lee, L. C., 2010. Dynamics and heterogeneity

in the process of human frailty and aging: evidence

from the U.S. older adult population. The Journals of

Gerontology: Series B, 65B(2), 246-255.

ICT4AWE 2020 - 6th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health