The impact of time controlled reading on software inspection effectiveness and efficiency: a controlled experiment

K. Petersen, K. Rönkkö, C. Wohlin
{"title":"The impact of time controlled reading on software inspection effectiveness and efficiency: a controlled experiment","authors":"K. Petersen, K. Rönkkö, C. Wohlin","doi":"10.1145/1414004.1414029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reading techniques help to guide reviewers during individual software inspections. In this experiment, we completely transfer the principle of statistical usage testing to inspection reading techniques for the first time. Statistical usage testing relies on a usage profile to determine how intensively certain parts of the system shall be tested from the users' perspective. Usage-based reading applies statistical usage testing principles by utilizing prioritized use cases as a driver for inspecting software artifacts (e.g., design). In order to reflect how intensively certain use cases should be inspected, time budgets are introduced to usage-based reading where a maximum inspection time is assigned to each use case. High priority use cases receive more time than low priority use cases. A controlled experiment is conducted with 23 Software Engineering M.Sc. students inspecting a design document. In this experiment, usage-based reading without time budgets is compared with time controlled usage-based reading. The result of the experiment is that time budgets do not significantly improve inspection performance. In conclusion, it is sufficient to only use prioritized use cases to successfully transfer statistical usage testing to inspections.","PeriodicalId":124452,"journal":{"name":"International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1414004.1414029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Reading techniques help to guide reviewers during individual software inspections. In this experiment, we completely transfer the principle of statistical usage testing to inspection reading techniques for the first time. Statistical usage testing relies on a usage profile to determine how intensively certain parts of the system shall be tested from the users' perspective. Usage-based reading applies statistical usage testing principles by utilizing prioritized use cases as a driver for inspecting software artifacts (e.g., design). In order to reflect how intensively certain use cases should be inspected, time budgets are introduced to usage-based reading where a maximum inspection time is assigned to each use case. High priority use cases receive more time than low priority use cases. A controlled experiment is conducted with 23 Software Engineering M.Sc. students inspecting a design document. In this experiment, usage-based reading without time budgets is compared with time controlled usage-based reading. The result of the experiment is that time budgets do not significantly improve inspection performance. In conclusion, it is sufficient to only use prioritized use cases to successfully transfer statistical usage testing to inspections.
时间控制阅读对软件检查效果和效率的影响:一项对照实验
阅读技术有助于在单个软件检查期间指导评审人员。在本实验中,我们首次将统计使用测试的原理完全转移到检查阅读技术中。统计使用测试依赖于使用配置文件,以确定从用户的角度对系统的某些部分进行测试的强度。基于使用的阅读通过利用优先级的用例作为检查软件工件(例如,设计)的驱动程序来应用统计使用测试原则。为了反映特定用例应该被检查的深度,时间预算被引入到基于使用的阅读中,其中为每个用例分配了最大检查时间。高优先级用例比低优先级用例获得更多的时间。对23名软件工程硕士学生进行了对照实验。在本实验中,将无时间预算的基于使用的阅读与有时间控制的基于使用的阅读进行了比较。实验结果表明,时间预算并不能显著提高检测性能。总之,仅使用优先级的用例就足以成功地将统计使用测试转移到检查中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信