PBR vs. checklist: a replication in the n-fold inspection context

Lulu He, Jeffrey C. Carver
{"title":"PBR vs. checklist: a replication in the n-fold inspection context","authors":"Lulu He, Jeffrey C. Carver","doi":"10.1145/1159733.1159750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Inspection is considered a powerful method to check software documents for defects. Many published work shows that inspections in requirements specification phase are particularly effective and efficient. Perspective-Based Reading (PBR) is one of the systematic techniques to support defect detection in requirements documents. In this paper we describe an experiment to validate the effectiveness of PBR in a meeting-based N-fold inspection. Our goals were: (1) re-test the hypothesis of the original experiment that PBR helps to increase individual and team defect detection effectiveness compared to an checklist approach; (2) investigate the different impact of PBR and checklist on the effectiveness of N-fold team meeting; and (3) investigate some interesting characteristics of PBR (e.g. the relationship between background experiences and performance of the subjects). The results of the study showed that PBR was significantly more effective than checklist (supporting the original study). We also found that the team meeting is much more important for checklist teams, based on the number of meeting gains and the number of false defects eliminated. Finally, we found that teams using the PBR techniques have less overlap in their defect detection than those using checklist. The ultimate goal is to provide best practices (guidance) for applying PBR in software inspection and also some advice for PBR (or software inspections) process improvement.","PeriodicalId":201305,"journal":{"name":"International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1159733.1159750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Inspection is considered a powerful method to check software documents for defects. Many published work shows that inspections in requirements specification phase are particularly effective and efficient. Perspective-Based Reading (PBR) is one of the systematic techniques to support defect detection in requirements documents. In this paper we describe an experiment to validate the effectiveness of PBR in a meeting-based N-fold inspection. Our goals were: (1) re-test the hypothesis of the original experiment that PBR helps to increase individual and team defect detection effectiveness compared to an checklist approach; (2) investigate the different impact of PBR and checklist on the effectiveness of N-fold team meeting; and (3) investigate some interesting characteristics of PBR (e.g. the relationship between background experiences and performance of the subjects). The results of the study showed that PBR was significantly more effective than checklist (supporting the original study). We also found that the team meeting is much more important for checklist teams, based on the number of meeting gains and the number of false defects eliminated. Finally, we found that teams using the PBR techniques have less overlap in their defect detection than those using checklist. The ultimate goal is to provide best practices (guidance) for applying PBR in software inspection and also some advice for PBR (or software inspections) process improvement.
PBR vs.检查表:n倍检查上下文中的复制
检查被认为是检查软件文档缺陷的一种强有力的方法。许多已发表的工作表明,需求规范阶段的检查是特别有效和高效的。基于透视图的阅读(PBR)是支持需求文档中缺陷检测的系统技术之一。在本文中,我们描述了一个实验来验证PBR在基于会议的n次检查中的有效性。我们的目标是:(1)重新测试原始实验的假设,即与检查表方法相比,PBR有助于提高个人和团队缺陷检测的有效性;(2)考察了PBR和检查表对n次团队会议有效性的不同影响;(3)研究一些有趣的PBR特征(如背景经历与被试表现之间的关系)。研究结果表明,PBR显著优于检查表(支持原始研究)。我们还发现,基于会议收益的数量和消除错误缺陷的数量,团队会议对于检查表团队来说更为重要。最后,我们发现使用PBR技术的团队在缺陷检测方面比使用检查表的团队有更少的重叠。最终目标是为在软件检查中应用PBR提供最佳实践(指导),以及为PBR(或软件检查)过程改进提供一些建议。
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