We present the ASA Questionnaire, an instrument for evaluating human interaction with an artificial social agent (ASA), resulting from multi-year efforts involving more than 100 Intelligent Virtual Agent (IVA) researchers worldwide. It has 19 measurement constructs constituted by 90 items, which capture more than 80% of the constructs identified in empirical studies published in the IVA conference 2013 - 2018. This paper reports on construct validity analysis, specifically convergent and discriminant validity of initial 131 instrument items that involved 532 crowd-workers who were asked to rate human interaction with 14 different ASAs. The analysis included several factor analysis models and resulted in the selection of 90 items for inclusion in the long version of the ASA questionnaire. In addition, a representative item of each construct or dimension was selected to create a 24-item short version of the ASA questionnaire. Whereas the long version is suitable for a comprehensive evaluation of human-ASA interaction, the short version allows quick analysis and description of the interaction with the ASA. To support reporting ASA questionnaire results, we also put forward an ASA chart. The chart provides a quick overview of the agent profile. @en

In the published article, there was an error in Table 5. For each second construct/dimension, the means are swapped between Chinese and English data, which is caused by an error in the underlying R script. Consequently, the plus and minus signs for the delta and CI values are also wrong. The corrected Table 5 and its caption appear below. Construct/dimension rating difference between mixed-international English-speaking and Chinese mother-tongue groups. Δ Score are pairwise differences between Chinese and mother-tongue cultural background and mixed-international cultural background taken from the posterior distribution. M, mean; SD, standard deviation; CI, credible interval. The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.@en

In the published article, there was an error in Table 5. For each second construct/dimension, the means are swapped between Chinese and English data, which is caused by an error in the underlying R script. Consequently, the plus and minus signs for the delta and CI values are also wrong. The corrected Table 5 and its caption appear below. Construct/dimension rating difference between mixed-international English-speaking and Chinese mother-tongue groups. Δ Score are pairwise differences between Chinese and mother-tongue cultural background and mixed-international cultural background taken from the posterior distribution. M, mean; SD, standard deviation; CI, credible interval. The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.@en

Research into artificial social agents aims at constructing these agents and at establishing an empirically grounded understanding of them, their interaction with humans, and howthey can ultimately deliver certain outcomes in areas such as health, entertainment, and education. Key for establishing such understanding is the community's ability to describe and replicate their observations on how users perceive and interact with their agents. In this paper, we address this ability by examining questionnaires and their constructs used in empirical studies reported in the intelligent virtual agent conference proceedings from 2013 to 2018. The literature survey shows the identification of 189 constructs used in 89 questionnaires thatwere reported across 81 papers.We found unexpectedly little repeated use of questionnaires as the vast majority of questionnaires (more than 76%) were only reported in a single paper. We expect that this finding will motivate joint effort by the IVA community towards creating a unified measurement instrument.@en

The Artificial-Social-Agent (ASA) questionnaire is an instrument for evaluating human-ASA interaction. It consists of 19 constructs and related dimensions measured by either 24 questionnaire items (short version) or 90 questionnaire items (long version). The questionnaire was built and validated by a research community effort to make evaluation results more comparable between agents and findings more generalizable. The current questionnaire is in English, which limits its use to only a population with an adequate command of the English language. Translating the questionnaire into more languages allows for the inclusion of other populations and the possibility of comparing them. Therefore, this paper presents a Mandarin Chinese translation of the questionnaire. After three construction cycles that included forward and backward translation, we gave both the final version of the translated and original English questionnaire to 242 bilingual crowd-workers to evaluate 14 ASAs. Results show on average a good level of correlation on the construct/dimension level (ICC M = 0.79, SD = 0.09, range [0.61, 0.95]) and on the item level (ICC M = 0.62, SD = 0.14, range [0.19, 0.92]) between the two languages for the long version, and for the short version (ICC M = 0.66, SD = 0.12, range [0.41, 0.92]). The analysis also established correction values for converting questionnaire item scores between Chinese and English questionnaires. Moreover, we also found systematic differences in English questionnaire scores between the bilingual sample and a previously collected mixed-international English-speaking sample. We hope this and the Chinese questionnaire translation will motivate researchers to study human-ASA interaction among a Chinese literate population and to study cultural similarities and differences in this area.@en

Research into artificial social agents aims at constructing these agents and at establishing an empirically grounded understanding of them, their interaction with humans, and how they can ultimately deliver certain outcomes in areas such as health, entertainment, and education. Key for establishing such understanding is the community’s ability to describe and replicate their observations on how users perceive and interact with their agents. In this paper, we address this ability by examining questionnaires and their constructs used in empirical studies reported in the intelligent virtual agent conference proceedings from 2013 to 2018. The literature survey shows the identification of 189 constructs used in 89 questionnaires that were reported across 81 papers. We found unexpectedly little repeated use of questionnaires as the vast majority of questionnaires (more than 76%) were only reported in a single paper. We expect that this finding will motivate joint effort by the IVA community towards creating a unified measurement instrument and in the broader AI community a renewed interest in replicability of our (user) studies.@en