Empirical Evaluation of Software Maintenance Technologies

Empirical Software Engineering

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 97-108

  Lanubile, Filippo ^a,b,c,d,e,f  

^a University of Maryland ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^d Exp Software Eng Research Group   (United States)

^e Department of Computer Science ^*  (United States)

^f IEEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Classification framework; Empirical research; Software maintenance; Technology evaluation

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION; DECISION MAKING;

SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 0030651151     PISSN: 13823256     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009788914777     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Basili, V. R., Caldiera, G. , Lanubile, F., and Shull, F. 1996. Investigating focused techniques for understanding frameworks. WESS '96, Proc. Int. Workshop on Empirical Studies of Software Maintenance.
2. Basili, V. R., Green, S., Laitenberger, O., Lanubile, F., Shull, F., Sorumgard, S., and Zelkowitz, M. 1996. Packaging researcher experience to assist replication of experiments. Proc. ISERN Meeting, 3-6.
3. Briand, L., Bunse, C., Daly, J., and Differding, C. 1996. An experimental comparison of the maintainability of object-oriented and structured design documents. Technical Report ISERN-96-13, International Software Engineering Research Network.
4. Brooks, R. E. 1980. Studying programmer behavior experimentally: the problems of proper methodology. Communications of the ACM 23(4): 207-213.
5. Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
6. Glass, R. L. 1995. A structure-based critique of contemporary computing research. The Journal of Systems and Software 28: 3-7.
7. Harrison, R., and Smith, A. 1996. An assessment of object-oriented design in the maintenance of a large-scale system. WESS '96, Proc. Int. Workshop on Empirical Studies of Software Maintenance.
8. Kitchenham, B. A. 1996. Evaluating software engineering methods and tool - Part 1: The evaluation context and evaluation methods. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 21(1): 11-15.
9. Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., and Kidder, L. H. 1991. Research Methods in Social Relations, 6th edition. Orlando: Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
10. Kiper, J., Auernheimer, B., and Ames, C. 1996. Improving the maintenance process: making software more accessible. WESS '96, Proc. Int. Workshop on Empirical Studies of Software Maintenance.
11. Lee, A. S. 1989. A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly, March: 33-49.
12. Lindvall, M. 1996. Evaluating impact analysis - A case study. WESS '96, Proc. Int. Workshop on Empirical Studies of Software Maintenance.
13. Porter, A. A., Votta, L. G., and Basili, V. R. 1995. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: a replicated experiment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21 (6): 563-575.
14. Rosenblum, D., and Weyuker, E. 1996. Lessons learned from a regression testing case study. WESS '96, Proc. Int. Workshop on Empirical Studies of Software Maintenance.
15. Rothermel, G., and Harrold, M. J. 1996. Experience with regression test selection. WESS '96, Proc. Int. Workshop on Empirical Studies of Software Maintenance.
16. Sadler, C., and Kitchenham, B. A. 1996. Evaluating software engineering methods and tool - Part 4: The influence of human factors. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 21(5): 11-13.
17. Sheil, B. A. 1981. The psychological study of programming. ACM Computing Surveys 13(1): 101-120.
18. Tichy, W. F., Lukowicz, P., Prechelt, L., and Heinz, E. A. 1995. Experimental evaluation in computer science: a quantitative study. The Journal of Systems and Software 28: 9-18.
19. Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.