Experimental comparison of reading techniques for defect detection in UML design documents

Journal of Systems and Software

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 183-204

  Laitenberger, Oliver ^a   Atkinson, Colin ^a   Schlich, Maud ^a   El Emam, Khaled ^b  

^a FRAUNHOFER IESE   (Germany)

^b NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CODES (SYMBOLS); COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION LANGUAGES; ERROR DETECTION; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING;

CHECKLIST BASED READING; PERSPECTIVE BASED READING; SOFTWARE QUALITY; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION;

EID: 0034248383     PISSN: 01641212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0164-1212(00)00052-2     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Aron, A., Aron, E., 1994. Statistics for Psychology, first ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2. Atkinson C. Adapting the fusion process to support the unified modeling language. Object Magazine. 1998;32-39.
3. Basili V., Green S., Laitenberger O., Lanubile F., Shull F., Sorumgard S., Zelkowitz M The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Empirical Software Engineering. 2(1):1996;133-164.
4. Basili, V., Shull, F., Lanubile, F., 1998. Using experiments to build a body of knowledge. Technical Report, University of Maryland, CS-TR-3983.
5. Basili V. Evolving and packaging reading technologies. Journal of Systems and Software. 38(1):1997;3-12.
6. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., 1999. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
7. Briand, L., El Emam, K., Fussbroich, T., Laitenberger, O., 1998. Using simulation to build inspection efficiency benchmarks for development projects. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 340-349.
8. Brooks, A., Daly, J., Miller, J., Roper, M., Wood, M., 1996. Replication of experimental results in software engineering. International Software Engineering Research Network (ISERN) Technical Report ISERN-96-10, University of Strathclyde.
9. Brooks R. Studying programmer behavior experimentally: the problems of proper methodology. Communications of the ACM. 23(4):1980;207-213.
10. Cheng, B., Jeffery, R., 1996. Comparing inspection strategies for software requirements specifications. In: Proceedings of the 1996 Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 203-211.
11. Chernak Y. A statistical approach to the inspection checklist formal synthesis and improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 22(12):1996;866-874.
12. Chidamber S., Kemerer C. A metrics suite for object-oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 21(3):1995;265.
13. Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, London.
14. Coleman D., Arnold P., Godoff S., Dollin C., Gilchrist H., Hayes F., Jeremaes P. Object-Oriented Development: The Fusion Method. 1994;Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
15. Dyer M. The Cleanroom Approach to Quality Software Development. 1992;Wiley, New York.
16. Edgington, E.S., 1980. Randomization Tests. Marcel Dekker, New York.
17. El Emam, K., Benlarbi, S., Goel, G., Rai, S., 1999. A validation of object-oriented metrics. Technical Report of the National Research Council of Canada, NRC/ERB-1063. NRC 43607 (submitted).
18. El Emam, K., Melo, W., 1999.The prediction of faulty classes using object-oriented design metrics. Technical Report of the National Research Council of Canada, NRC/ERB-1064. NRC 43609 (submitted).
19. Fagan M. Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal. 15(3):1976;182-211.
20. Fagan M. Advances in software inspections. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 12(7):1986;744-751.
21. Fowler P. In-process inspections of workproducts at AT&T. AT&T Technical Journal. 65(2):1986;102-112.
22. Fusaro P., Lanubile F. A replicated experiment to assess requirements inspection techniques. Empirical Software Engineering. 2(1):1997;39-57.
23. Gilb T., Graham D. Software Inspection. 1993;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
24. Good P. Permutation Tests: A Practical Guide to Resampling Methods for Testing Hypotheses. 1994;Springer, Berlin.
25. Graden M., Horsley P., Pingel T. The effects of software inspections on a major telecommunications project. AT&T Technical Journal. 65(3):1986;32-40.
26. Greenwald, A., 1976. Within-subjects designs: to use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin 83 (2).
27. Grizzle J. The two-period chance-over design and its use in clinical trials. Biometrics. 21:1965;314-320.
28. Hatton L. Does OO sync with how we think. IEEE Software. 15(3):1998;4654.
29. Hayes W. Research synthesis in software engineering: a case for meta-analysis. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Metrics. 1999;143-151.
30. Hedges L., Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. 1985;Academic Press, New York.
31. Jacobson I. Object-Oriented Software Engineering. 1992;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
32. Jacobson I., Booch G., Rumbaugh J. The Unified Software Development Process. 1998;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
33. Johnson P., Tjahjono D. Does every inspection really need a meeting. Empirical Software Engineering. 3:1998;9-35.
34. Keren, G., 1993. A Handbook for Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences - Methodological Issues, Between- or Within-Subjects Design: A Methodological Dilemma. Lawrence Erlbaum, London (Chapter 19).
35. Kitchenham B., Linkman S., Law S. Critical review of quantitative assessment. Software Engineering Journal. 1994;43-53.
36. Laitenberger, O., Atkinson, C., 2000. Generalizing perspective-based inspection to handle object-oriented development artefacts. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering. Los Angeles, USA.
37. Laitenberger O., DeBaud J.-M. An encompassing life-cycle centric survey of software inspection. Journal of Systems and Software. 50(1):2000;5-31.
38. Laitenberger, O., El Emam, K., Harbich, T., 2000. An internally replicated quasi-experimental comparison of checklist and perspective-based reading of code documents. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (accepted). Also available as Report of the International Software Engineering Research Network, ISERN-99-01.
39. Land, L., Sauer, C., Jeffery, R., 1997. Validating the defect detection performance advantage of group designs for software reviews: report of a laboratory experiment using program code. In: Jazayeri, M., Schauer, H. (Eds.), Sixth European Software Engineering Conference, pp. 294-309, Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 1301.
40. Linger R., Mills H., Witt B. Structured Programming: Theory and Practice. 1979;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
41. Lipsey M. Design Sensitivity. 1990;Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.
42. McCall, J., 1994. Quality factors. In: Marciniak, A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 2. Wiley, New York, pp. 958-969.
43. Mehta, C., Patel, N., 1999. Exact permutational inference for categorical and nonparametric data. In: Hoyle, R. (Ed.) Statistical Strategies For Small Sample Research. Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.
44. Miller J., Wood M., Roper M. Further experiences with scenarios and checklists. Empirical Software Engineering. 3(1):1998;37-64.
45. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Software Formal Inspection Guidebook, 1993. Technical Report NASA-GB-A302, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, http://satc.gsfc.nasa.gov/fi/fipage.html.
46. Parnas D., Weiss D. Active design reviews: principles and practice. Journal of Systems and Software. 7:1987;59-265.
47. Porter A., Votta L., Basili V. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: a replicated experiment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 21(6):1995;563-575.
48. Porter A., Votta L. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: a replication using professional subjects. Empirical Software Engineering. 3:1998;355-379.
49. Rifkin, S., Deimel, L., 1994. Applying program comprehension techniques to improve inspection. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual NASA Software Engineering Workshop, NASA.
50. Rumbaugh J., Blaha M., Prembalini W., Eddy F., Lorensen W. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. 1991;Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
51. Sandahl S., Blomkvist O., Karlsson J., Krysander C., Lindvall M., Ohlsson N. An extended replication of an experiment for assessing methods for software requirements inspections. Empirical Software Engineering. 3:1998;327-354.
52. Travassos, G., Shull, F., Fredericks, M., Basili, V., 1999. Detecting defects in object oriented designs: using reading techniques to increase software quality. In: Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA).
53. Dijk T., Kintsch W. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. 1984;Academic Press, Orlando.
54. Votta L. Does every inspection need a meeting. ACM Software Engineering Notes. 18(5):1993;107-114.
55. Winer, B., Brown, D., Michels, K., 1991. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.