Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

Jaclyn Molan

dblp:398/1696 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 56% Human-robot interaction · 44%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-robot interaction › safe human-robot interaction
perceived safety
0.912025
The Perceived Danger (PD) Scale: Development and Validation · HRI 2025
Usability and user experience research
scale development
0.912025
The Perceived Danger (PD) Scale: Development and Validation · HRI 2025
Usability and user experience research › psychometric evaluation
psychometric validation
0.312025
The Perceived Danger (PD) Scale: Development and Validation · HRI 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

exploratory factor analysis · 0.9confirmatory factor analysis · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 The Perceived Danger (PD) Scale: Development and Validation
abstract
There are currently no psychometrically valid tools to measure the perceived danger of robots. To fill this gap, we provided a definition of perceived danger and developed and validated a 12-item bifactor scale through four studies. An exploratory factor analysis revealed four subdimensions of perceived danger: affective states, physical vulnerability, ominousness, and cognitive readiness. A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the bifactor model. We then compared the perceived danger scale to the Godspeed perceived safety scale and found that the perceived danger scale is a better predictor of empirical data. We also validated the scale in an in-person setting and found that the perceived danger scale is sensitive to robot speed manipulations, consistent with previous empirical findings. Results across experiments suggest that the perceived danger scale is reliable, valid, and an adequate predictor of both perceived safety and perceived danger in human-robot interaction contexts.
Jaclyn Molan, Laura Saad, Eileen Roesler, J. Malcolm McCurry, Nathaniel Gyory, J. Gregory Trafton
HRI1