Evaluating guidelines for reporting empirical software engineering studies
- 883 Downloads
Several researchers have criticized the standards of performing and reporting empirical studies in software engineering. In order to address this problem, Jedlitschka and Pfahl have produced reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. They pointed out that their guidelines needed evaluation. We agree that guidelines need to be evaluated before they can be widely adopted.
The aim of this paper is to present the method we used to evaluate the guidelines and report the results of our evaluation exercise. We suggest our evaluation process may be of more general use if reporting guidelines for other types of empirical study are developed.
We used a reading method inspired by perspective-based and checklist-based reviews to perform a theoretical evaluation of the guidelines. The perspectives used were: Researcher, Practitioner/Consultant, Meta-analyst, Replicator, Reviewer and Author. Apart from the Author perspective, the reviews were based on a set of questions derived by brainstorming. A separate review was performed for each perspective. The review using the Author perspective considered each section of the guidelines sequentially.
The reviews detected 44 issues where the guidelines would benefit from amendment or clarification and 8 defects.
Reporting guidelines need to specify what information goes into what section and avoid excessive duplication. The current guidelines need to be revised and then subjected to further theoretical and empirical validation. Perspective-based checklists are a useful validation method but the practitioner/consultant perspective presents difficulties.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
K.6.3 [Software Engineering]: Software Management—Software process.
KeywordsControlled experiments Software engineering Guidelines Perspective-based reading Checklist-based reviews
- Abdelnabi Z, Cantone G, Ciolkowski M, Rombach D (2004) Comparing code reading techniques applied to object-oriented software frameworks with regard to effectiveness and defect detection rate Proceedings ISESE 04.Google Scholar
- Abrahao S, Poels G, Pastor O (2004) Assessing the reproducibility and accuracy of functional size measurement methods through experimentation, Proceedings ISESE 04.Google Scholar
- Harris P (2002) Designing and reporting experiments in psychology, 2nd edn. Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Hartley J (2004) Current findings from research on structured abstracts. J Med Libr Assoc 92(3):368–371Google Scholar
- Jedlitschka A, Pfahl D (2005) Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. IESE-Report IESE-035.5/EGoogle Scholar
- Kitchenham B (2004) Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Joint Technical Report, Keele University TR/SE-0401 and NICTA 0400011T.1, JulyGoogle Scholar
- Kitchenham B, Al-Khilidar H, Ali Babar M, Berry M, Cox K, Keung J, Kurniawati F, Staples M, Zang H, Zhu L (2006) Evaluating guidelines for empirical software engineering studies, ISESE06, BrazilGoogle Scholar
- Schroeder PJ, Bolaki P, Gopu V (2004) Comparing the fault detection effectiveness of N-way and random test suites, Proceedings ISESE 04 Google Scholar
- Sjøberg DIK, Hannay JE, Hansen O, Kampenes VB, Karahasanovic A, Liborg N-K, Rekdal AC (2005) A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng (9):733–753, September 31Google Scholar
- Shull Forest, Rus Ionna, Basili Victor (2000) How perspective-Reading can Improve Requirements Inspection. IEEE Computer 73–78, JulyGoogle Scholar
- Verelst Jan (2004) The influence of the level of abstraction on the evolvability of conceptual models of information systems. Proceedings ISESE 04 Google Scholar
- Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2000) Experimentation in software engineering. An introduction. Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
- Wohlin C, Petersson H, Aurum A (2003) Combining data from reading experiments in software inspections. In: Juristo N, Moreno A (eds) Lecture notes on empirical software engineering. World Scientific PublishingGoogle Scholar