Applying sampling to improve software inspections

Journal of Systems and Software

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 257-269

  Thelin, Thomas ^a   Petersson, Håkan ^a   Runeson, Per ^a   Wohlin, Clase ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b BLEKINGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Efficiency; Empirical study; Monte Carlo simulation; Sampling; Software inspection

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; INSPECTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; RESEARCH; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

EMPIRICAL STUDY; SAMPLE-DRIVEN INSPECTION (SDI); SOFTWARE INSPECTION; TIME ALLOCATION METHOD;

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 3242718763     PISSN: 01641212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0164-1212(03)00249-8     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Basili V.R., Green S., Laitenberger O., Lanubile F., Shull F., Sørumgård S., Zelkowitz M.V. The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal. 1(2):1996;133-164.
2. Berling, T., Runeson, P., 2001. Evaluation of a perspective based review method performed in an industrial setting. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Empirical Assessment & Evaluation in Software Engineering.
3. Burr A., Owen M. Statistical Methods for Software Quality - Using Metrics for Process Improvements. 1996;International Thomson Computer Press, UK.
4. Chao A. Estimating population size for sparse data in capture-recapture experiments. Biometrics. 45:1989;427-438.
5. Ebenau R.G., Strauss S.H. Software Inspection Process. 1994;McGraw-Hill, New York.
6. El Emam K., Laitenberger O. Evaluating capture-recapture models with two inspectors. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 27(9):2001;851-864.
7. Fagan M.E. Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM System Journal. 15(3):1976;182-211.
8. Gilb T., Graham D. Software Inspections. 1993;Addison-Wesley, UK.
9. Kellner M.I., Madachy R.J., Raffo D.M. Software process simulation modeling: why? what? how? Journal of Systems and Software. 46(2/3):1999;91-105.
10. Kusumoto S., Kikuno T., Matsumoto K.-I., Torii K. Experimental evaluation of time allocation procedure for technical reviews. Journal of Systems and Software. 35(2):1996;119-126.
11. MacFarland, R., Golubic, S., Grenner, D., 2001. An improvement program spreading effective use of reviews and inspections throughout a multinational telecommunications company. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Inspection in Software Engineering. pp. 127-135.
12. Miller J. Estimating the number of remaining defects after inspection. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability. 9(4):1999;167-189.
13. Ohlsson, N., Helander, M., Wohlin, C., 1996. Quality improvement by identification of fault-prone modules using software design metrics. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Software Quality. pp. 1-13.
14. Otis D.L., Burnham K.P., White G.C., Anderson D.R. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs. 1978;62.
15. Petersson, H., Wohlin, C., 1999. An empirical study of experience-based software defect content estimation methods. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. pp. 126-135.
16. Weller E.F. Lessons from three years of inspection data. IEEE Software. 10(5):1993;38-45.