On the need to define community agreements for controlled experiments with human subjects: a discussion paper

Stefan Hanenberg, A. Stefik
{"title":"On the need to define community agreements for controlled experiments with human subjects: a discussion paper","authors":"Stefan Hanenberg, A. Stefik","doi":"10.1145/2846680.2846692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While it looks like controlled trials with human involvement are increasingly applied in software science, there are few explicitly documented community standards in regard to their design or approach. This leads to a number of problems: experimenters cannot be sure whether an experiment they perform does represent the current state-of-the-art, reviewers have no guidelines to check whether a critique they have in mind is valid or not, and readers from experiments have hardly any chance to check whether the results of an experiment they are reading should be taken seriously. This paper discusses the problem of missing community standards for empirical studies in computer science and makes a first proposal with respect to subjects, training, measurements, experimental designs, and documentation. The overall goal of this paper is to begin a discussion on this issue.","PeriodicalId":213941,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2846680.2846692","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

While it looks like controlled trials with human involvement are increasingly applied in software science, there are few explicitly documented community standards in regard to their design or approach. This leads to a number of problems: experimenters cannot be sure whether an experiment they perform does represent the current state-of-the-art, reviewers have no guidelines to check whether a critique they have in mind is valid or not, and readers from experiments have hardly any chance to check whether the results of an experiment they are reading should be taken seriously. This paper discusses the problem of missing community standards for empirical studies in computer science and makes a first proposal with respect to subjects, training, measurements, experimental designs, and documentation. The overall goal of this paper is to begin a discussion on this issue.
关于定义人类受试者对照实验社区协议的必要性:一份讨论文件
虽然看起来人类参与的对照试验越来越多地应用于软件科学,但很少有关于其设计或方法的明确记录的社区标准。这导致了许多问题:实验者不能确定他们所做的实验是否代表了当前的最先进的水平,评论者没有指导方针来检查他们心中的评论是否有效,而实验的读者几乎没有机会检查他们正在阅读的实验结果是否应该被认真对待。本文讨论了缺少计算机科学实证研究的社区标准的问题,并就主题、培训、测量、实验设计和文档提出了第一个建议。本文的总体目标是对这一问题展开讨论。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信