Investigating the active guidance factor in reading techniques for defect detection

Proceedings - 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 219-228

  Denger, Christian ^a   Ciolkowski, Marcus ^b   Lanubile, Filippo ^c  

^a FRAUNHOFER IESE   (Germany)

^b France   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHECKLIST BASED READING (CBR); REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICATION; SCENARIO BASED READING (SBR);

INSPECTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; OPTIMIZATION; QUALITY ASSURANCE; REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING;

TECHNICAL WRITING;

EID: 11244250769     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/ISESE.2004.1334909     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Ackerman A. F., Buchwald L S, Lewski F H. Software Inspections: An Effective Verification Process. IEEE Software, 6-3 (1989), 31-36.
2. Basili V R. Evolving and Packaging Reading Technologies. Journal of Systems and Software, 38-1 (July 1997) 3-12.
3. Basili V R, Green S, Laitenberger O, Lanubile F, Shull F, Sorumgard S, and Zelkowitz M. The Empirical Investigation of Perspective-based Reading, Empirical Software Engineering 1 (1996) 133-164.
4. D. Campbell, J. Stanley, Experimental Designs for Research Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1963
5. Chernak Y. A Statistical Approach to the Inspection Checklist Formal Synthesis and Improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22-12, (December 1996) 866-874.
6. Ciolkowski M. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Different Reading Techniques for Informal Requirements Documents. Master's thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, 1999.
7. Ciolkowski M., Laitenberger O., Biffl S. Software Reviews: The state of the practice, IEEE Software, December 2003, pp. 46-51.
8. Ciolkowksi M, Differding C, Laitenberger O, and Munch J, Empirical Investigation of Perspective-based Reading: A Replicated Experiment, Technical Report ISERN-97-13 (1997).
9. F. D. Davis. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, pages 319-340, 1989
10. Denger, C; Ciolkowski, M; Lanubile, F Empirical Investigation of the Success Factors of Scenario Based Reading, IESE-Report, 115.03/E, Kaiserslautern, 2003
11. Dunsmore A., Roper M, Wood M. The Development and Evaluation of Three Diverse Techniques for OO Code Inspection. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29-8 (August 2003).
12. Fagan M E, Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development, IBM Systems Journal 15-3 (1976) 182-211.
13. Fusaro P, Lanubile F, and Visaggio G. A Replicated Experiment to Assess Requirements Inspection Techniques, Empirical Software Engineering 2 (1997) 39-57.
14. Gilb T, and Graham D. Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1993.
15. Humphrey W. S. Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1989.
16. Laitenberger O, Atkinson C, Schlich M, El Eman K. An Experimental Comparison of Reading Techniques for Defect Detection in UML Design Documents. The Journal of Systems and Software, 53 (2000) 183-204.
17. O. Laitenberger; Cost-effective Detection of Software Defects through Perspective-based Inspections; PhD Thesis in Experimental Software Engineering; Fraunhofer IRB Verlag; 2000.
18. O. Laitenberger, H Dreyer. Evaluating the Usefulness and the Ease of Use of a Web-based Inspection Data Collection Tool, IESE-Report 027.98/E, 1998.
19. O. Laitenberger, and J.M. DeBaud. An Encompassing Life Cycle Centric Survey of Software Inspection, The Journal of Systems and Software, 50 (2000), 5-31.
20. Laitenberger O, El Eman K, and Harbich T G. An Internally Replicated Quasi-Experimental Comparison of Checklist and Perspective-Based Reading of Code Documents, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27-5 (May 2001) 387-421.
21. Laitenberger, O., Vegas, S., and Ciolkowski, M. The State of the Practice of Review and Inspection Technologies in Germany. Technical Report ViSEK/010/E, ViSEK, 2002
22. Miller J, Wood M, and Roper M. Further Experiences with Scenarios and Checklists, Empirical Software Engineering 3 (1998) 37-64.
23. Porter A, Votta L G, and Basili V R. Comparing Detection Methods for Software Requirements Inspections: A Replicated Experiment, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21-6 (June 1995) 563-575.
24. Porter A, and Votta L G. Comparing Detection Methods for Software Requirements Specification: A Replication Using Professional Subjects, Empirical Software Engineering 3 (1998) 355-379.
25. Sandahl K, Blomkvist O, Karlsson J, Krysander C, Lindvall M, and Ohlsson N. An Extended Replication of an Experiment for Assessing Methods for Software Requirements Inspections, Empirical Software Engineering 3 (1998) 327-354.
26. Sabaliauskaite, G., Matsukawa, F., Kusomoto S., Inoue K.; An Experimental Comparison of Checklist-Based Reading and Perspective-Based Reading for UML Design Document Inspection; In Proc. of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering; Nara, Japan; 2002
27. Thelin T, Runeson P, Wohlin C. An Experimental Comparison of Usage-Based Reading and Checklist-Based Reading. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29-8 (August 2003), 687-704.