使用多站点盲分析方法对测试驱动开发效果的外部复制

D. Fucci, G. Scanniello, Simone Romano, M. Shepperd, Boyce Sigweni, F. Uyaguari, Burak Turhan, Natalia Juristo Juzgado, M. Oivo
{"title":"使用多站点盲分析方法对测试驱动开发效果的外部复制","authors":"D. Fucci, G. Scanniello, Simone Romano, M. Shepperd, Boyce Sigweni, F. Uyaguari, Burak Turhan, Natalia Juristo Juzgado, M. Oivo","doi":"10.1145/2961111.2962592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Test-driven development (TDD) is an agile practice claimed to improve the quality of a software product, as well as the productivity of its developers. A previous study (i.e., baseline experiment) at the University of Oulu (Finland) compared TDD to a test-last development (TLD) approach through a randomized controlled trial. The results failed to support the claims. Goal: We want to validate the original study results by replicating it at the University of Basilicata (Italy), using a different design. Method: We replicated the baseline experiment, using a crossover design, with 21 graduate students. We kept the settings and context as close as possible to the baseline experiment. In order to limit researchers bias, we involved two other sites (UPM, Spain, and Brunel, UK) to conduct blind analysis of the data. Results: The Kruskal-Wallis tests did not show any significant difference between TDD and TLD in terms of testing effort (p-value = .27), external code quality (p-value = .82), and developers' productivity (p-value = .83). Nevertheless, our data revealed a difference based on the order in which TDD and TLD were applied, though no carry over effect. Conclusions: We verify the baseline study results, yet our results raises concerns regarding the selection of experimental objects, particularly with respect to their interaction with the order in which of treatments are applied. We recommend future studies to survey the tasks used in experiments evaluating TDD. Finally, to lower the cost of replication studies and reduce researchers' bias, we encourage other research groups to adopt similar multi-site blind analysis approach described in this paper.","PeriodicalId":208212,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An External Replication on the Effects of Test-driven Development Using a Multi-site Blind Analysis Approach\",\"authors\":\"D. Fucci, G. Scanniello, Simone Romano, M. Shepperd, Boyce Sigweni, F. Uyaguari, Burak Turhan, Natalia Juristo Juzgado, M. Oivo\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2961111.2962592\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: Test-driven development (TDD) is an agile practice claimed to improve the quality of a software product, as well as the productivity of its developers. A previous study (i.e., baseline experiment) at the University of Oulu (Finland) compared TDD to a test-last development (TLD) approach through a randomized controlled trial. The results failed to support the claims. Goal: We want to validate the original study results by replicating it at the University of Basilicata (Italy), using a different design. Method: We replicated the baseline experiment, using a crossover design, with 21 graduate students. We kept the settings and context as close as possible to the baseline experiment. In order to limit researchers bias, we involved two other sites (UPM, Spain, and Brunel, UK) to conduct blind analysis of the data. Results: The Kruskal-Wallis tests did not show any significant difference between TDD and TLD in terms of testing effort (p-value = .27), external code quality (p-value = .82), and developers' productivity (p-value = .83). Nevertheless, our data revealed a difference based on the order in which TDD and TLD were applied, though no carry over effect. Conclusions: We verify the baseline study results, yet our results raises concerns regarding the selection of experimental objects, particularly with respect to their interaction with the order in which of treatments are applied. We recommend future studies to survey the tasks used in experiments evaluating TDD. Finally, to lower the cost of replication studies and reduce researchers' bias, we encourage other research groups to adopt similar multi-site blind analysis approach described in this paper.\",\"PeriodicalId\":208212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"33\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962592\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962592","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

摘要

上下文:测试驱动开发(TDD)是一种敏捷实践,声称可以提高软件产品的质量,以及开发人员的生产力。奥卢大学(芬兰)先前的一项研究(即基线实验)通过随机对照试验将TDD与测试后开发(TLD)方法进行了比较。研究结果并不能支持这些说法。目的:我们希望通过在巴西利卡塔大学(意大利)使用不同的设计进行复制来验证原始研究结果。方法:采用交叉设计,在21名研究生中重复基线实验。我们保持设置和背景尽可能接近基线实验。为了限制研究者的偏倚,我们引入了另外两个站点(UPM,西班牙和Brunel,英国)对数据进行盲分析。结果:Kruskal-Wallis测试在测试工作量(p值= 0.27)、外部代码质量(p值= 0.82)和开发人员的生产力(p值= 0.83)方面没有显示TDD和TLD之间的任何显著差异。尽管如此,我们的数据显示了基于TDD和TLD应用顺序的差异,尽管没有结转效应。结论:我们验证了基线研究结果,但我们的结果引起了对实验对象选择的关注,特别是它们与应用治疗顺序的相互作用。我们建议未来的研究调查在实验评估TDD中使用的任务。最后,为了降低重复研究的成本和减少研究者的偏倚,我们鼓励其他研究小组采用本文描述的类似的多位点盲分析方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An External Replication on the Effects of Test-driven Development Using a Multi-site Blind Analysis Approach
Context: Test-driven development (TDD) is an agile practice claimed to improve the quality of a software product, as well as the productivity of its developers. A previous study (i.e., baseline experiment) at the University of Oulu (Finland) compared TDD to a test-last development (TLD) approach through a randomized controlled trial. The results failed to support the claims. Goal: We want to validate the original study results by replicating it at the University of Basilicata (Italy), using a different design. Method: We replicated the baseline experiment, using a crossover design, with 21 graduate students. We kept the settings and context as close as possible to the baseline experiment. In order to limit researchers bias, we involved two other sites (UPM, Spain, and Brunel, UK) to conduct blind analysis of the data. Results: The Kruskal-Wallis tests did not show any significant difference between TDD and TLD in terms of testing effort (p-value = .27), external code quality (p-value = .82), and developers' productivity (p-value = .83). Nevertheless, our data revealed a difference based on the order in which TDD and TLD were applied, though no carry over effect. Conclusions: We verify the baseline study results, yet our results raises concerns regarding the selection of experimental objects, particularly with respect to their interaction with the order in which of treatments are applied. We recommend future studies to survey the tasks used in experiments evaluating TDD. Finally, to lower the cost of replication studies and reduce researchers' bias, we encourage other research groups to adopt similar multi-site blind analysis approach described in this paper.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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