An experimental investigation of personality types impact on pair effectiveness in pair programming

Empirical Software Engineering

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 187-226

  Sfetsos, Panagiotis ^a   Stamelos, Ioannis ^a   Angelis, Lefteris ^a   Deligiannis, Ignatios ^b  

^a ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

^b ALEXANDER TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

Author keywords

Controlled experiment; KTS test; Pair collaboration viability; Pair communication; Pair effectiveness; Pair performance; Pair programming; Personality temperament type

Indexed keywords

DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTS; KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION; STATISTICAL TESTS;

CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT; KTS-TEST; PAIR COLLABORATION-VIABILITY; PAIR COMMUNICATION; PAIR EFFECTIVENESS; PAIR PERFORMANCE; PAIR PROGRAMMING; PERSONALITY/TEMPERAMENT TYPE;

COMMUNICATION;

EID: 61849135438     PISSN: 13823256     EISSN: 15737616     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10664-008-9093-5     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Ahmad K, Hammond N (2004) Taxonomy of analysis levels of learning effectiveness in collaborative concept mapping. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain
2. E Arisholm H Gallis T Dyba D Sjøberg 2007 Evaluating pair programming with respect to system complexity and programmer expertise IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33 2 65 86 doi:10.1109/TSE.2007.17
3. V Basili H Rombach 1988 The TAME project: towards improvement-oriented software environments IEEE Trans Softw Eng XIV 6 758 773 doi:10.1109/32.6156
4. V Basili D Weiss 1984 A methodology for collecting valid software engineering data IEEE Trans Softw Eng SE-10 728 738
5. V Basili F Shull F Lanubille 1999 Building knowledge through families of experiments IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25 4 456 473 doi:10.1109/32.799939
6. Beck K (2000) Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley, Boston, USA
7. Berens LV (1998) Understanding yourself and others: an introduction to temperament. Telos, Huntington Beach, CA
8. JH Bradley FJ Hebert 1997 The effect of personality type on team performance J Manage Dev 16 5 337 353 doi:10.1108/02621719710174525
9. L Briand C Bunse J Daly C Differding 1997 An experimental comparison of the maintainability of object-oriented and structured design documents Empir Softw Eng 2 3 291 312 doi:10.1023/A:1009720117601
10. L Briand E Arisholm F Counsell F Houdek P Thevenod-Fosse 1999 Empirical studies of object-oriented artifacts, methods, and processes: state of the art and future directions Empir Softw Eng 4 4 387 404 18
11. Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1996) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp 1-12, 34-71
12. Canfora G, Cimitile A, Visaggio CA (2004) Working in pairs as a means for design knowledge building: an empirical study. 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp 62-68. ISBN: 0-7695-2149-5
13. LF Captez 2003 Personality types in software engineering Int J Hum Comput Stud 58 2 207 214 doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(02)00137-4
14. Center for Applications of Psychological Type (2006) MBTI Code of Ethics. http://www.capt.org/The-MBTI-Instrument/Ethical-Use.cfm. Last visited: 26 January 2006
15. Chao J, Atli G (2006) Critical personality traits in successful pair programming. Proceedings of AGILE 2006 Conference (AGILE'06), pp 89-93
16. Chong J, Hurlbutt T (2007) The social dynamics of pair programming. 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07), pp 354-363
17. Cockburn A (1998, May/June) The coffee machine design problem: part 1 & 2. C/C++ user's journal
18. Cockburn A (2002) Agile software development. Addison-Wesley, Boston, USA
19. Cockburn A, Williams L (2000) The costs and benefits of pair programming. 1st International Conference on Extreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering, Italy (XP2000)
20. Coleman JS (1990) The foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
21. Cook TD, Campbell DT (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis for field settings. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, USA
22. B Curtis H Krasner N Iscoe 1988 A field study of the software design process for large systems Commun ACM 31 1268 1287 doi:10.1145/50087.50089
23. A Dutoit B Bruegge 1998 Communication metrics for software development IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24 8 615 628
24. Fenton N (1991) Software metrics, a rigorous approach. Chapman & Hall, London
25. P Ferdinandi 1998 Facilitating communication IEEE Softw 15 5 92 96 doi:10.1109/52.714835
26. Forsyth DR (2006) Group dynamics, 4th edn. Belmont, CA, USA
27. Gallis H, Arisholm E, Dybå T (2002) A transition from partner programming to pair programming-an industrial case study. Pair Programming Work Shop in 17th Annual ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA'02), pp 1-8
28. Gallis H, Arisholm E, Dybå T (2003) An initial framework for research on pair programming. Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'03), p 132
29. N Gorla YW Lam 2004 Who should work with whom? Building effective software project teams Commun ACM 47 6 79 82 doi:10.1145/990680.990684
30. TR Halfhill E Sundstrom J Lahner W Calderone TM Nielsen 2005 Group personality composition and group effectiveness: an integrative review of empirical research Small Group Res 36 1 83 105 doi:10.1177/1046496404268538
31. Highsmith J (2002) Agile software development ecosystems. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, USA
32. Hulkko H, Abrahamsson P (2005, May) A multiple case study on the impact of pair programming on product quality. ICSE05. St. Louis, Missouri, USA, pp 495-504
33. WS Humphrey 1996 Using a defined and measured personal software process IEEE Softw 13 77 88 doi:10.1109/52.493023
34. Humphrey WS (1997) Managing technical people: innovation, teamwork, and the software process. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA
35. RW Jensen 2003 A pair programming experience. CrossTalk J Def Softw Eng 16 22 24
36. Johnson PM, Kou H, Agustin JM, Chan C, Moore CA, Miglani J et al (2003) Beyond the personal software process: metrics collection and analysis for the differently disciplined. International Conference on Software Engineering. Portland, Oregon. Proc 2003, pp 641-646
37. Judd CM, Smith ER, Kidder LH (1991) Research methods in social relations, 6th edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., Toronto
38. Katira N, Williams L, Wiebe E, Miller C, Balik S, Gehringer E (2004) On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers. ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE04, pp 7-11
39. Katira N, Williams L, Osborne J (2005) Towards increasing the compatibility of student pair programmers. International Conference on Software Engineering-ICSE05. St. Louis, Missouri, USA, pp 625-626
40. Keefer G (2005) Pair programming: an alternative to reviews and inspections? Cutter IT Journal, AVOCA
41. Keirsey D (1998) Please understand me II. Prometheus Nemesis Book Company, Del Mar, CA
42. Keirsey D, Bates M (1984) Please understand me. Prometheus Nemesis Books, Del Mar, California
43. Khamesan A, Hammond N (2004) Synchronous collaborative concept mapping via ICT: learning effectiveness and personal and interpersonal awareness. Proceeding of 1st International Conference on Concept Mapping (1st CMC, 2004), Spain
44. BL Kirkman PE Tesluk B Rosen 2001 Assessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness Person Psychol 54 645 667 doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001. tb00226.x
45. B Kitchenham S Pfleeger L Pickard P Jones D Hoaglin K El Emam 2002 Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28 8 721 734 doi:10.1109/TSE.2002.1027796
46. A Langley 1999 Strategies for theorizing from process data Acad Manage Rev 24 4 691 711 doi:10.2307/259349
47. Laplante P, Neil C (2006) Antipatterns. Identification, refactoring, and management. Auerbach, USA
48. CR Leana HJ Van Buren 1999 rganizational social capital and employment practices Acad Manage Rev 24 3 538 doi:10.2307/259141
49. Lui KM, Chan KCC (2003) When does a pair outperform two individuals? Fourth international conference in Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering (XP2003). LNCS 2003. Springer, pp 225-233
50. KM Lui KCC Chan 2006 Pair programming productivity: novice-novice vs. expert-expert Int J Human-Comput Stud 64 9 915 925
51. Macias F (2004) Empirical assessment of extreme programming. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield (August)
52. S McDonald H Edwards 2007 Who should test whom CACM 50 1 66 71
53. McDowell C, Werner L, Bullock H, Fernald J (2002) The effect of pair programming on performance in an introductory programming course. ACM Special Interest Group of Computer Science Educators, Covington, KY, pp 38-42
54. Melnik G, Maurer F (2002) Perceptions of Agile practices: a student survey. XP/Agile Universe, Chicago, IL, pp 241-250
55. Melnik G, Maurer F (June 2004) Direct verbal communication as a catalyst of Agile knowledge sharing. Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference. IEEE Computer Society, pp 21-31
56. Müller M (2003) Are reviews an alternative to pair programming? 7th International Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering, UK, volume 9(4), pp 335-351
57. M Müller 2005 Two controlled experiments concerning the comparison of pair programming to peer review J Syst Softw 78 2 166 179 doi:10.1016/j.jss.2004.12.019
58. Müller M, Tichy W (2001) Case study: extreme programming in a university environment, International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 537-544
59. Myers I (1962) Manual: the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California
60. Nawrocki J, Wojciechowski A (2001, April) Experimental evaluation of pair programming. 12th European Software Control and Metrics Conference (ESCOM 2001), London, UK
61. Nielsen TM, Sundstrom E, Halfhill TR (2005) Group dynamics and effectiveness: five years of applied research. In: Wheelan SA (ed) The handbook of group research and practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 285-311
62. J Nosek 1998 The case for collaborative programming Commun ACM 41 3 105 108 doi:10.1145/272287.272333
63. Ohira M, Yokomori R, Sakai M, Matsumoto K, Inoue K, Torii K (2004) Empirical project monitor: a tool for mining multiple project data. 1st International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, Tokyo, Japan, pp 141-150
64. Saeki M (1995) Communication, collaboration, and cooperation in software development-how should we support group work in software development? Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. Brisbane, Australia, pp 12-20
65. Seaman C, Basili V (1997) An empirical study of communication in code inspections. 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, Boston, pp 96-106 (May)
66. P Sfetsos L Angelis I Stamelos 2006 Investigating the extreme programming system-an empirical study Empir Softw Eng 11 2 269 301
67. A Sillitti A Janes G Succi T Vernazza 2003 Collecting, integrating and analyzing software metrics and personal software process data Proc EUROMICRO 2003 336 342
68. Stevens T (1998) The effects of roles and personality characteristics on software development team effectiveness. Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
69. N Stoyanova P Kommers 2002 Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer supported collaborative problem solving J Interact Learn Res 13 1/2 111 133
70. E Sundstrom K De Meuse D Futrell 1990 Work teams Am Psychol 45 120 133 doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120
71. Thomas L, Ratcliffe M, Robertson A (2003, February) Code warriors and code-a-phobes: a study in attitude and pair programming, Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, Reno, Navada, USA, pp 363-367
72. JE Tomayko 2002 A comparison of pair programming to inspections for software defect reduction J Comput Sci Educ 12 213 222 doi:10.1076/csed.12.3. 213.8614
73. Trochim W (1999) The research methods knowledge base, 2nd edn. Cornell Custom Publication, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
74. Williams L (2001) Integrating pair programming into a software development process. 14th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, USA, vol 2001, pp 27-36
75. Williams L, Kessler R (2003) Pair programming illuminated. Addison-Wesley, USA, Boston
76. L Williams R Kessler W Cunningham R Jeffries 2000 Strengthening the case for pair-programming IEEE Softw 17 19 25 doi:10.1109/52.854064
77. Williams L, Shukla A, Antón AI (2004) An initial exploration of the relationship between pair programming and Brooks' law. Agile Development Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, volume issue, 22-26 June 2004, pp 11-20
78. Williams L, Layman L, Osborne J, Katira N (2006) Examining the compatibility of student pair programmers. Proceedings of Agile 2006-AGILE06, pp 411-420
79. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlson M, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2000) Experimentation in software engineering: An introduction. Kluwer, USA