The case against cross-over designs in software engineering

Proceedings - 11th Annual International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice, STEP 2003

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 65-67

  Kitchenham, B ^a,b   Fry, J ^c   Linkman, S ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b CSIRO   (Australia)

^c PN Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Australia; Computer aided software engineering; Computer science; Design for experiments; Education; Hazards; Protocols; Software design; Software engineering; Statistics

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; COMPUTER SCIENCE; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; EDUCATION; EDUCATION COMPUTING; HAZARDS; NETWORK PROTOCOLS; SOFTWARE DESIGN; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; STATISTICS;

AUSTRALIA; CROSS OVER; CROSSOVER DESIGN; DESIGN FOR EXPERIMENTS; EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE; NON-COMMUTATIVE; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING METHODS;

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 84947932467     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/STEP.2003.32     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (5)

1. Freeman, P. The performance of the two-stage analysis of two treatment, two-period cross-over trails. Statistics in Medicine, 8, pp 1421-1432, 1989.
2. E. Kamsties and C. Lott. An empirical evaluation of three defect detection techniques. Technical report ISERN 95-02, Dept. Computer Science, University of Kaiserlautern, May, 1995
3. Helen C. Purchase, Ray Welland, Matthew McGill and Linda Colpoys. Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of Entity Relationship notations. EASE03, Keele University, 2003.
4. Marc Roper, Murray Wood and James Miller. An empirical evaluation of defect detection techniques. IST, 39 (1997), pp 763-775.
5. nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Chichester, England, 2002.