The relevance of application domain knowledge: Characterizing the computer program comprehension process

Journal of Management Information Systems

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 51-78

  Shaft, Teresa M ^a,b   Vessey, Iris ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TULSA   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Application domain; Computer program comprehension; Metacognition; Program understanding; System maintenance

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032223745     PISSN: 07421222     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07421222.1998.11518196     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adelson, B., and Soloway, E. The role of domain experience in software design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-11, 11 (1985), 1351-1360.
2. Anderson, J.R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: W.H. Freeman, 1985.
3. Basili, V.R., and Mills, H.D. Understanding and documenting programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-8, 3 (May 1982), 270-283.
4. Bennett, K.H.; Cornelius, B.J.; Munro, M.; and Robson, D.J. Software maintenance: a key area for research. University Computing, 10 (1988), 184-188.
5. Blum, B. Volume, distance, and productivity. Journal of Systems and Software, 9 (1989), 217-226.
6. Boehm-Davis, D. Software comprehension. In M. Helander (ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1988, pp. 107-121.
7. Brooks, R.E. Studying programmer behavior experimentally: the problems of proper methodology. Communications of the ACM, 23, 4 (1980), 207-213.
8. Brooks, R.E. Towards a theory of the comprehension of computer programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 18 (1983), 543-554.
9. Cohen, J.A. Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1960), 37-46.
10. Dyson-Hudson, N. Taming the COBOL maintenance monster. Computer Languages, 9, 9 (1992) 40-44.
11. Curtis, B.; Krasner, H.; and Iscoe, N. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM, 31, 11 (1988), 1268-1287.
12. Curtis, B.; Sheppard, S.B.; Kruesi-Bailey, E.; Bailey, J.; and Boehm-Davis, D.A. Experimental evaluation of software documentation formats. Journal of Systems and Software, 8 (1989), 167-207.
13. Flavell, J.H. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. Resnick (ed.), The Nature of Intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1976.
14. Ford, J.K.; Schmitt, N.; Schechtman, S.L.; Hults, B.M.; and Doherty, M.L. Process tracing methods: contributions, problems, and neglected research questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43 (1989), 75-117.
15. Gellenbeck, E.M., and Cook, C.R. An investigation of procedure and variable names as beacons during program comprehension. In J. Koenemann-Belliveau, T.G. Moher, and S.P. Robertson (eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1991, pp. 65-79.
16. Glass, R., and Vessey, I. Toward a taxonomy of software application domains: history. Journal of Systems and Software, 17, 2 (1992), 189-199.
17. Goldman, L. Using Tests in Counseling. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1971.
18. Green, T.R.G. Conditional program statements and their comprehensibility to professional programmers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50 (1977), 93-109.
19. Guindon, R. Knowledge exploited by experts during software system design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33 (1990), 323-342.
20. Guindon, R.; Krasner, H.; and Curtis, B. Breakdowns and processes during the early activities of software design by professionals. In G.M. Olson, S. Sheppard, and E.S. Soloway (eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1987, pp. 65-82.
21. Jarzabek, S. Domain model-driven software reengineering and maintenance. Journal of Systems and Software, 20 (1993), 37-51.
22. Jones, C. Programmer Productivity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986.
23. Jones, C. Software metrics: good, bad, and missing. IEEE Computer (September 1994), 98-100.
24. Kemerer, C.F. Software complexity and software maintenance: a survey of empirical research. Annals of Software Engineering, 1 (August 1995).
25. Landis, J.R., and Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33 (1977), 259-274.
26. Letovsky, S. Cognitive processes in program comprehension. In E.S. Soloway and S. Iyengar (eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: First Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1986, pp. 58-79.
27. Lind, R., and Vairavan, K. An experimental study of software metrics and their relationship to software development effort. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-15, 5 (1989), 649-653.
28. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometic Theory, 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1978.
29. Pennington, N. Comprehension strategies in programming. In G.M. Olson, S. Sheppard, and E. Soloway (eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: First Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1987, pp. 100-113.
30. Pennington, N. Stimulus structures and mental representations in expert comprehension of computer programs. Cognitive Psychology, 19 (1987), 295-341.
31. Robson, D.; Bennett, K.; Cornelius, B.; and Munro M. Approaches to program comprehension. Journal of Systems and Software, 14 (1991), 79-84.
32. Russo, J.E.; Johnson, E.J.; and Stephens, D.L. The validity of verbal protocols. Memory and Cognition, 17, 6 (1989), 759-769.
33. Shaft, T.M. Helping programmers understand computer programs: the use of metacognition. Data Base Advances, 26, 4 (1995), 25-46.
34. Shaft, T.M. Responses to comprehension questions and verbal protocols as measures of computer program comprehension processes. Behavior and Information Technology, 16, 6 (1997), 320-336.
35. Shaft, T.M., and Vessey, I. The relevance of application domain knowledge: the case of computer program comprehension. Information Systems Research, 6, 3 (1995), 286-299.
36. Sheppard, S.B.; Curtis, B.; Milliman, P.; and Love, T. Modern coding practices and programmer performance. IEEE Computer, 12, 12 (1979), 41-49.
37. Sheil, B.A. The psychological study of programming. ACM Computing Surveys, 13, 1 (1981), 101-120.
38. Sime, M.E.; Green, T.R.G.; and Guest, D.J. Psychological evaluations of two conditional constructions used in computer languages. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 5 (1973) 105-113.
39. Vessey, I., and Conger, S.A. Learning to specify information requirements: the relationship between applications and methodology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 2 (1993), 177-201.
40. Weiser, M. Programmers use slices when debugging. Communications of the ACM, 25, 7 (1984), 352-357.
41. Wiedenbeck, S. Processes in computer program comprehension. In E.S. Soloway and S. Iyengar (eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: First Workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1986, pp. 48-57.
42. Wiedenbeck, S. The initial stage of program comprehension. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35 (1991), 517-540.
43. Zuse, H. Software Complexity: Measure and Methods. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991.