Evaluating the SPICE rating scale with regard to the internal consistency of capability measures

Software Process Improvement and Practice

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 169-178

  Jung, Ho Won ^a   Hunter, Robin ^b  

^a Korea University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Dimensionality; Internal consistency; ISO IEC 15504; Phase 2 SPICE trials; Software process assessments

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SCIENCE; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; INFORMATION SCIENCE; RELIABILITY; SCHEDULING; STANDARDIZATION; STANDARDS;

DIMENSIONALITY; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; ISO/IEC 15504; PHASE 2 SPICE TRIALS; SOFTWARE PROCESS ASSESSMENTS;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 14344256023     PISSN: 10774866     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/spip.178     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Briand L, El-Emam K, Moraska S. 1996. On the application of measurement theory in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal 1(1): 61-88.
2. Carmines EG, Zeller RA. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences. Sage: Newbury Park.
3. Cronbach L. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3): 297-334.
4. El-Emam K, Madhavji NH. 1995. The reliability of measuring organizational maturity. Software Process Improvement and Practice 1(1): 3-25.
5. El-Emam K. 1998. The internal consistency of the ISO/IEC 15504 software process capability scale. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Software Metrics, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 72-81.
6. El-Emam K, Simon J-M, Rousseau S, Jacquet E. 1998. Cost implications of interrater agreement for software process assessment. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Software Metrics, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 38-51.
7. El-Emam K, Birk A. 2000a. Validating the ISO/IEC measure of software development process capability. Journal of Systems and Software 51(2): 119-149.
8. El-Emam K, BirkA. 2000b. Validating the ISO/IEC measure of software requirement analysis process capability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(6): 541-566.
9. El-Emam K, Jung H-W. 2001. An evaluation of the ISO/IEC 15504 assessment model. Journal of Systems and Software 59(1): 23-41.
10. Fusaro P, El-Emam K, Smith B. 1998. The internal consistencies of the 1987 SEI maturity questionnaire and the SPICE capability dimension. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal 3(2): 179-201.
11. Gardner P. 1975. Scales and statistics. Review of Educational Research 45(1): 43-57.
12. Humphrey W, Curtis B. 1991. Comments on a 'A Critical Look'. IEEE Software 8(4): 42-46.
13. Hunter R. 1998. SPICE trials assessment profile. IEEE Software Process Newsletter 12: 12-18.
14. ISO/IEC JTC1 Directive. 1999. Procedures for the Technical Work of ISO/IEC JTC1. ISO/IEC JTC1.ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, http://www.jtc1.org/ directives/toc.htm.
15. ISO/IEC PDTR 15504. 1995. Information Technology - Software Process Assessment: Parts 1-Part 9.
16. Jung H-W. 2002. Evaluating the internal consistency of ISO/IEC TR 15504 process capability measures. Software Process Improvement and Practice 2003; 8(1): 5-26.
17. Jung H-W. 2003. Evaluating interrater agreement in SPICE-based assessments. Computer Standards and Interfaces 2207:1-23.
18. Jung H-W, Goldenson D. 2002. The Internal Consistency of Key Process Areas in the Capability Maturity Model® (CMM®) for Software (SW-CMM). Technical Report, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-037, ESC-TR-2002-037. ftp://ftp.sei.cmu.edu/ pub/documents/02.reports/pdf/02tr037.pdf.
19. Jung H-W, Hunter R, Goldenson D, El-Emam K. 2001. Findings from Phase 2 of the SPICE Trials. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 6(2): 1-38.
20. Kim J, Mueller C. 1978. Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences. Sage: Newbury Park.
21. Maclennan F, Ostrolenk G. 1995. The SPICE Trials: Validating the framework. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 1(1): 47-55.
22. McIver J, Carmines E. 1981. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences. Unidimensional Scaling. Sage: Newbury Park.
23. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. 1994. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill: New York.
24. Simon J-M, El-Emam K, Jacquet S-R, Babet F. 1997. The Reliability of ISO/IEC PDTR 15504 Assessments. Software Process Improvement and Practice 3(3): 177-188.
25. Spector PF. 1980. Ratings of equal and unequal response choice intervals. Journal of Social Psychology 112: 115-119.
26. Spector PF. 1992. Summated Rating Scale Construction: An Introduction. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences. Sage: Newbury Park.
27. SPICE Trials. 1998. SPICE Phase 2 Trials Interim Report, Version 1.00, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/WG10, http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/research/papers/SPICE/ p2rp100pub.pdf.
28. SPICE Trials. 1999. SPICE Phase 2 Trials final Report, Vol. 1, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/WG10, http://www.cis.strath.ac. uk/research/papers/SPICE/p2v2rp100.pdf.
29. Stevens S. 1951. Mathematics, Measurement, and Psychophysics. In Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Stevens S (eds). John Wiley & Sons: New York.
30. Trochim W. 2001. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edn atomicdogpublishing.com.
31. Velleman P, Wilkinson L. 1993. Normal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading. The American Statistician 47:65-72.