EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jaclyn Molan
dblp:398/1696
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Human-robot interaction › safe human-robot interaction
perceived safety |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Perceived Danger (PD) Scale: Development and Validation · HRI 2025 |
Usability and user experience research
scale development |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The Perceived Danger (PD) Scale: Development and Validation · HRI 2025 |
Usability and user experience research › psychometric evaluation
psychometric validation |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | The Perceived Danger (PD) Scale: Development and ValidationabstractThere 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 |
HRI | 1 |