Assessing the impact of active guidance for defect detection: a replicated experiment

F. Lanubile, Teresa Mallardo, Fabio Calefato, C. Denger, M. Ciolkowski
{"title":"Assessing the impact of active guidance for defect detection: a replicated experiment","authors":"F. Lanubile, Teresa Mallardo, Fabio Calefato, C. Denger, M. Ciolkowski","doi":"10.1109/METRIC.2004.1357909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scenario-based reading (SBR) techniques have been proposed as an alternative to checklists to support the inspectors throughout the reading process in the form of operational scenarios. Many studies have been performed to compare these techniques regarding their impact on the inspector performance. However, most of the existing studies have compared generic checklists to a set of specific reading scenarios, thus confounding the effects of two SBR key factors: separation of concerns and active guidance. In a previous work we have preliminarily conducted a repeated case study at the University of Kaiserslautern to evaluate the impact of active guidance on inspection performance. Specifically, we compared reading scenarios and focused checklists, which were both characterized as being perspective-based. The only difference between the reading techniques was the active guidance provided by the reading scenarios. We now have replicated the initial study with a controlled experiment using as subjects 43 graduate students in computer science at University of Bari. We did not find evidence that active guidance in reading techniques affects the effectiveness or the efficiency of defect detection. However, inspectors showed a better acceptance of focused checklists than reading scenarios.","PeriodicalId":261807,"journal":{"name":"10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 2004. Proceedings.","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 2004. Proceedings.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/METRIC.2004.1357909","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Scenario-based reading (SBR) techniques have been proposed as an alternative to checklists to support the inspectors throughout the reading process in the form of operational scenarios. Many studies have been performed to compare these techniques regarding their impact on the inspector performance. However, most of the existing studies have compared generic checklists to a set of specific reading scenarios, thus confounding the effects of two SBR key factors: separation of concerns and active guidance. In a previous work we have preliminarily conducted a repeated case study at the University of Kaiserslautern to evaluate the impact of active guidance on inspection performance. Specifically, we compared reading scenarios and focused checklists, which were both characterized as being perspective-based. The only difference between the reading techniques was the active guidance provided by the reading scenarios. We now have replicated the initial study with a controlled experiment using as subjects 43 graduate students in computer science at University of Bari. We did not find evidence that active guidance in reading techniques affects the effectiveness or the efficiency of defect detection. However, inspectors showed a better acceptance of focused checklists than reading scenarios.
评估主动引导对缺陷检测的影响:一个重复的实验
基于场景的阅读(SBR)技术已被提议作为检查清单的替代方案,以操作场景的形式在整个阅读过程中支持检查员。已经进行了许多研究来比较这些技术对检查员表现的影响。然而,现有的大多数研究将通用清单与一组特定的阅读情景进行了比较,从而混淆了SBR的两个关键因素:关注点分离和主动引导的影响。在之前的工作中,我们在凯泽斯劳滕大学进行了初步的重复案例研究,以评估主动指导对检查性能的影响。具体来说,我们比较了阅读场景和重点检查表,两者都是基于视角的。两种阅读技巧的唯一区别是阅读场景所提供的主动引导。我们现在用一个对照实验复制了最初的研究,实验对象是43名巴里大学计算机科学专业的研究生。我们没有发现证据表明阅读技术中的主动引导会影响缺陷检测的有效性或效率。然而,视察员对重点清单的接受程度要高于阅读情景。
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