Empirical evidence about the UML: A systematic literature review

Software - Practice and Experience

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 363-392

  Budgen, D ^a   Burn, A J ^a   Brereton, O P ^b   Kitchenham, B A ^b   Pretorius, R ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

systematic literature review; UML

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; EXPERT OPINION; MAPPING STUDIES; MODEL QUALITIES; OBJECT ORIENTED MODELLING; SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW; UML; UML MODEL;

OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING;

UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE;

EID: 79952480632     PISSN: 00380644     EISSN: 1097024X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/spe.1009     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Kitchenham BA, Dybà T, JÃrgensen M,. Evidence-based software engineering. Proceedings of ICSE 2004. IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2004; 273-281.
2. Kitchenham B, Charters S,. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Technical Report EBSE 2007-001, Keele University and Durham University Joint Report, 2007; 1-57.
3. Petticrew M, Roberts H,. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, 2006.
4. Kitchenham B, Brereton P, Budgen D, Turner M, Bailey J, Linkman S,. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering-A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 2009; 51 (1): 7-15.
5. Kitchenham B, Pretorius R, Budgen D, Brereton P, Turner M, Niazi M, Linkman S,. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering-A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology 2010; 52: 792-805.
6. Moody DL,. The 'physics' of notations: Toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2009; 35 (6): 756-779.
7. Pretorius R, Budgen D,. A mapping study on empirical evidence related to the models and forms used in the UML. Proceedings of Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2008. ACM Press: New York, 2008.
8. Budgen D, Kitchenham BA, Charters S, Turner M, Brereton P, Linkman S,. Presenting software engineering results using structured abstracts: A randomised experiment. Empirical Software Engineering 2008; 13 (4): 435-468.
9. Budgen D, Turner M, Brereton P, Kitchenham B,. Using mapping studies in software engineering. Proceedings of PPIG 2008, Lancaster University, 2008; 195-204.
10. Glezer C, Last M, Nachmany E, Shoval P,. Quality comprehension of UML interaction diagrams-An experimental comparison. Information and Software Technology 2005; 47: 675-692. (Pubitemid 40893580)
11. Chen Y, Boehm BW, Madachy R, Valerdi R,. An empirical study of eservices product UML sizing metrics. Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE'04. IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2004; 199-206. (Pubitemid 40062832)
12. Genero M, Piattini M, Calero C,. Empirical validation of class diagram metrics. Proceedings of 2002 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2002; 195-203.
13. Genero M, Piattini M, Manso E,. Finding 'early' indicators of UML class diagrams understandability and modifiability. Proceedings of 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2004; 207-216. (Pubitemid 40062833)
14. Genero M, Piattini M, Manso E, Canatone G,. Building UML class diagram maintainability prediction models. Proceedings of 11th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium (Metrics'03). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2003; 263-275.
15. Genero M, Manso E, Vissagio A, Canfora G,. Building measure-based prediction models for UML class diagram maintainability. Empirical Software Engineering 2007; 12 (5): 517-549. (Pubitemid 47476816)
16. Genero M, Jiménez L, Piattini MA,. A controlled experiment for validating class diagram structural complexity metrics. Eighth International Conference on Object-Oriented Information Systems (OOIS 2002) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2425). Springer: Berlin, 2002; 372-383.
17. Genero M, Jiménez L, Piattini MA,. Empirical validation of class diagram complexity metrics. Proceedings of 21st International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC 2001). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2001; 95-104.
18. Reynoso L, Genero M, Piattini M, Manso E,. Does object coupling really affect the understanding and modifiability of OCL expressions. Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM Press: New York, 2006; 1721-1727. (Pubitemid 44759082)
19. Reynoso L, Genero M, Piattini M,. Assessing the impact of coupling on the understandability and modifiability of OCL expressions within UML/OCL combined models. 11th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium. IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2005; 10.
20. Reynoso L, Genero M, Piattini M,. Validating OCL metrics through a family of experiments. Jornados de Ingenería del Software y Bases de Datos (JISBD), 2004; 475-482.
21. Marchesi M,. OOA metrics for the Unified Modeling Language. Proceedings of Second Euromicro Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR'98). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 1998; 67-73.
22. Nugroho A, Flaton B, Chaudron MRV,. Empirical analysis of the relationship between level of detail in UML models and defect density. 11th International Conference, MoDELS 2008 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5301). Springer: Berlin, 2008; 600-614.
23. Genero M, Piattini M, Calero C,. Early measures for UML class diagrams. L'Object 2000; 6 (4): 489-516.
24. Genero M, Piattini M, Calero C,. A survey of metrics for UML class diagrams. Journal of Object Technology 2005; 4 (9): 59-92. (Pubitemid 41739082)
25. Reynoso L, Genero M, Piattini M,. Measuring OCL expressions: An approach based on cognitive techniques. Metrics for Conceptual Models. Imperial College Press: London, 2005.
26. Dybã T, Kampenes VB, Sjãberg DIK,. A systematic review of statistical power in software engineering experiments. Information and Software Technology 2006; 48 (8): 745-755. (Pubitemid 44218930)
27. Tilley S, Huang S,. A qualitative assessment of the efficacy of UML diagrams as a form of graphical documentation in aiding program understanding. Proceedings of 21st International Conference on Documentation (SIGDOC'03). ACM Press: New York, 2003; 184-191. (Pubitemid 40498310)
28. Ricca F, Di Penta M, Torchiano M, Tonella P, Ceccato M,. The role of experience and ability in comprehension tasks supported by UML stereotypes. Proceedings of 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2007; 375-384. (Pubitemid 47430672)
29. Purchase HC, Colpoys L, McGill M, Carrington D, Britten C,. UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension. Proceedings of the 2001 Asia-Pacific Symposium on Information Visualisation. ACM Press: New York, 2001; 113-120.
30. Mari Otero C, Jose Dolado J,. An empirical comparison of the dynamic modelling in OML and UML. Journal of Systems and Software 2005; 77 (2): 91-102.
31. Staron M, Kuzniarz L, Wohlin C,. Empirical assessment of using stereotypes to improve comprehension of UML models: A set of experiments. Journal of Systems and Software 2006; 79 (5): 727-742.
32. Cruz-Lemus JA, Genero M, Manso ME, Piattini M,. Evaluating the effect of composite states on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Springer: Berlin, 2005; 113-125.
33. Otero MC, Dolado JJ,. Evaluation of the comprehension of dynamic modelling in UML. Information and Software Technology 2004; 46: 35-53.
34. Reinhartz-Berger R, Dori D,. OPM vs UML-Experimenting with comprehension and construction of web application models. Empirical Software Engineering 2005; 10 (1): 57-80.
35. Otero MC, Dolado JJ,. An initial experimental assessment of the dynamic modelling in UML. Empirical Software Engineering 2002; 7 (1): 27-47. (Pubitemid 34473463)
36. Swan J, Barker T, Britton C, Kutar M,. An empirical study of factors that affect user performance when using UML interaction diagrams. Proceedings of 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE 2005). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2005; 346-355. (Pubitemid 44462620)
37. Torchiano M,. Empirical assessment of UML static object diagrams. Proceedings of 12th IEEE Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC'04). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2004; 226-230.
38. Purchase HC, Colpoys L, McGill M, Carrington D,. UML collaboration diagram syntax: An empirical study of comprehension. First International Workshop on Visualising Software for Understanding and Analysis (VISSOFT), 2002; 13-22.
39. Briand LC, Labiche Y, Yan HD, Di Pent M,. An experiment/lab study on the impact of the Object Constraint Language in UML-based development. Proceedings of 20th IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'04). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2004; 380-389. (Pubitemid 40601040)
40. Genero M, Cruz-Lemus JA, Caivano D, Abraheo S, Insfran E, Carse JA,. Assessing the influence of stereotypes on the comprehension of UML sequence diagrams: A controlled experiment. Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS 2008) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5301). Springer: Berlin, 2008; 280-294.
41. Firesmith DG, Henderson-Sellers B, Graham I, Page-Jones M,. Open Modeling Language (OML) Reference Manual. SIGS Books & Multimedia: New York, 1998.
42. Dori D,. Object-Process Methodology-A Holistic Systems Paradigm. Springer: Heidelberg, 2002.
43. Lange C, Chaudron M,. An empirical assessment of completeness in UML designs. Proceedings of EASE 2004. IEE: Stevenage, Herts, 2004; 111-119.
44. Lange C, Chaudron M, Muskens J,. UML software architecture and design description. IEEE Software 2006; 23 (2).
45. Lange C, Chaudron M,. Effects of defects in UML models. Proceedings of ICSE 2006. ACM Press: New York, 401-410.
46. Nugroho A, Chaudron MRV,. A survey into the rigor of UML use and its perceived impact on quality and productivity. Proceedings of Second International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2008). ACM Press: New York, 90-99.
47. Britton C, Kutar M, Anthony S, Barker T,. An empirical study of user preference and performance with UML diagrams. Proceedings of Symposia on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (HCC'02). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2002; 31-33.
48. De Lucia A, Gravino C, Oliveto R, Tortora G,. Assessing the support of ER and UML class diagrams during maintenance activities on data models. Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2008). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2008; 173-182.
49. Zendler A, Pfeiffer T, Eicks M, Lehner F,. Experimental comparison of coarse-grained concepts in UML, OML and TOS. Journal of Systems and Software 2001; 57: 21-30.
50. Budgen D,. Software Design (2nd edn). Pearson Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 2003.
51. Anda B, SjÃberg D,. Investigating the role of use cases in the construction of class diagrams. Empirical Software Engineering 2005; 10 (3): 285-309. (Pubitemid 40925156)
52. Anda B, Hansen K, Gullsen I, Hanne Thorsen K,. Experiences from introducing UML-based development in a large safety-critical project. Empirical Software Engineering 2006; 11 (4): 555-581.
53. Briand LC, Labiche Y, O'Sullivan L, Sowka MM,. Automated impact analysis of UML models. Journal of Systems and Software 2006; 79: 339-352. (Pubitemid 43332514)
54. Purchase HC, Carrington D, Alder J,. Empirical evaluation of aesthetics-based graph layout. Empirical Software Engineering 2002; 7 (3): 233-255. (Pubitemid 34950312)
55. Sabaliauskaite G, Matsukawa F, Kusumoto S, Inoue K,. An experimental comparison of checklist-based reading and perspective-based reading for UML design document inspection. Proceedings of Internation Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'02). IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2002; 148-160.
56. Bunse C,. Using patterns for the refinement and translation of UML models: A controlled experiment. Empirical Software Engineering 2006; 11: 227-267.
57. Lange CFJ, Wijns MAM, Chaudron MRV,. Supporting task-modelling using interactive UML views. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 2007; 18: 399-419.
58. Lynch A, Flango D, Smith R, Lang M,. Experiences of using Rational Rose/Visio for UML modeling in an undergraduate software engineering course: A student perspective. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges (JCSC) 2004; 19 (5): 353-356.
59. Grossman M, Aronson JE, McCarthy RV,. Does UML make the grade? insights from the software development community. Information and Software Technology 2005; 47 (6): 383-397. (Pubitemid 40391292)
60. Goodhue DL,. Development measurement validity of a task-technology fit instrument for user evaluations of information systems. Decision Sciences 1998; 29: 105-138. (Pubitemid 128079228)
61. Dobing B, Parsons J,. How UML is used. Communications of the ACM 2006; 49 (5): 109-113. (Pubitemid 44046412)
62. Bolloju N, Leung FSK,. Assisting novice analysts in developing quality conceptual models with UML. Communications of the ACM 2006; 49 (7): 108-112. (Pubitemid 44076042)
63. Mohagheghi P, Dehlen V, Neple T,. Definitions approaches to model quality in model-based software development-a review of literature. Information and Software Technology 2009; 51: 1646-1669.
64. Lucas FJ, Molina F, Toval A,. A systematic review of UML model consistency management. Information and Software Technology 2009; 51: 1631-1645.
65. Zhang C, Budgen D,. What do we know about the effectiveness of software design patterns? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2010; submitted for publication.
66. Ericsson KA, Simon H,. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1993.