A Comparative Study of Model-Driven Approaches For Scoping and Planning Experiments

Waldemar Ferreira, M. T. Baldassarre, S. Soares, Bruno Cartaxo, G. Visaggio
{"title":"A Comparative Study of Model-Driven Approaches For Scoping and Planning Experiments","authors":"Waldemar Ferreira, M. T. Baldassarre, S. Soares, Bruno Cartaxo, G. Visaggio","doi":"10.1145/3084226.3084258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Through the years researchers have proposed several approaches to foster the growth and quality of experiments in Software Engineering. Among these approaches, there are some initiatives that rely on tool support for specifying controlled experiments. Goal: This paper reports results from a study, which aims to organize, analyze and outline the specifications of each initiative through a comparative analysis. Method: Specifications of each initiative have been compared through a comparative analysis, carried out according to eight criteria: (i) standard empirical concepts, (ii) goals and targets, (iii) involved variables, (iv) subject description, (v) design of experiment, (vi) tasks and activities, (vii) instruments and measurements, and (viii) the threats to research validity. Results: The results show that, among the tools currently existing and used in literature, the eSEE (Experimental Software Engineering Environment) is a complete model. However, it is also the most complex. In the other hand, the most flexible one is Experiment DSL. Conclusion: Based on our results, the currently existing solutions have strengths and weaknesses that should address efforts to make improvements in this area. In principal, our general suggestion is to place emphasis on methodological quality âĂŞ more than on method quantity.","PeriodicalId":192290,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084258","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Context: Through the years researchers have proposed several approaches to foster the growth and quality of experiments in Software Engineering. Among these approaches, there are some initiatives that rely on tool support for specifying controlled experiments. Goal: This paper reports results from a study, which aims to organize, analyze and outline the specifications of each initiative through a comparative analysis. Method: Specifications of each initiative have been compared through a comparative analysis, carried out according to eight criteria: (i) standard empirical concepts, (ii) goals and targets, (iii) involved variables, (iv) subject description, (v) design of experiment, (vi) tasks and activities, (vii) instruments and measurements, and (viii) the threats to research validity. Results: The results show that, among the tools currently existing and used in literature, the eSEE (Experimental Software Engineering Environment) is a complete model. However, it is also the most complex. In the other hand, the most flexible one is Experiment DSL. Conclusion: Based on our results, the currently existing solutions have strengths and weaknesses that should address efforts to make improvements in this area. In principal, our general suggestion is to place emphasis on methodological quality âĂŞ more than on method quantity.
模型驱动的范围界定和规划实验方法的比较研究
背景:多年来,研究人员提出了几种方法来促进软件工程实验的增长和质量。在这些方法中,有一些计划依赖于工具支持来指定受控实验。目标:本文报告了一项研究的结果,该研究旨在通过比较分析来组织、分析和概述每个计划的规格。方法:通过比较分析对每个项目的规格进行比较,根据八个标准进行:(i)标准经验概念,(ii)目标和指标,(iii)涉及变量,(iv)主题描述,(v)实验设计,(vi)任务和活动,(vii)仪器和测量,以及(viii)对研究有效性的威胁。结果:结果表明,在文献中现有和使用的工具中,eSEE (Experimental Software Engineering Environment,实验软件工程环境)是一个完整的模型。然而,它也是最复杂的。另一方面,最灵活的是实验DSL。结论:根据我们的结果,目前现有的解决方案有优点和缺点,应该努力在这方面做出改进。原则上,我们的一般建议是将重点放在方法质量âĂŞ上,而不是方法数量上。
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