Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 513–539 | Cite as

Developing search strategies for detecting relevant experiments

Article

Abstract

Our goal is to analyze the optimality of search strategies for use in systematic reviews of software engineering experiments. Studies retrieval is an important problem in any evidence-based discipline. This question has not been examined for evidence-based software engineering as yet. We have run several searches exercising different terms denoting experiments to evaluate their recall and precision. Based on our evaluation, we propose using a high recall strategy when there are plenty of resources or the results need to be exhaustive. For any other case, we propose optimal, or even acceptable, search strategies. As a secondary goal, we have analysed trends and weaknesses in terminology used in articles reporting software engineering experiments. We have found that it is impossible for a search strategy to retrieve 100% of the experiments of interest (as happens in other experimental disciplines), because of the shortage of reporting standards in the community.

Keywords

Evidence-based software engineering Systematic review Controlled experiment 

References

  1. Bailey J, Zhang C, Budgen D (2007) Search engine overlaps: do they agree or disagree? Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Realising Evidence-Based Software Engineering REBSE’07. Minneapolis, USA, 1–6Google Scholar
  2. Brereton P, Kitchenham B, Budgen D, Turner M, Khalil M (2007) Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J Syst Softw 80(4):571–583. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis A, Dieste O, Juristo N, Moreno A (2006) Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: empirical results derived from a systematic review. Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference RE’06. Minneapolis, USA, 179–188Google Scholar
  4. Dybå T, Kitchenham B, Jørgensen M (2005) Evidence-based software engineering for practitioners. IEEE Softw 22:58–65. doi:10.1109/MS.2005.6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dybå T, Kampenes V, Sjøberg D (2006) A systematic review of statistical power in software engineering experiments. Inf Softw Technol 48(8):745–755. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2005.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dybå T, Arisholm E, Sjoberg D, Hannay J, Shull F (2007a) Are two heads better than one? On the effectiveness of pair programming. IEEE Softw 24(6):10–13. doi:10.1109/MS.2007.158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dybå T, Dingsøyr T, Hanssen GK (2007b) Applying systematic reviews to diverse study types: an experience report. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007). Madrid, Spain, 225–234Google Scholar
  8. EBM Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teach the practice of medicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc 268(17):2420–2425Google Scholar
  9. Hannay J, Sjøberg D, Dybå T (2007) A systematic review of theory use in software engineering experiments. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(2):87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Higgins J, Green S (2006) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]. In: The Cochrane library (vol 4). Wiley, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Jedlitschka A, Pfahl D (2005) Reporting experiments in software engineering. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE’05). Noosa Heads, Australia, 95–104Google Scholar
  12. Jørgensen MA (2004) Review of studies on expert estimation of software development effort. J Syst Softw 70(1–2):37–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jørgensen M, Shepperd M (2007) A systematic review of software development cost estimation studies. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(1):33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Juristo N, Moreno A, Vegas S (2004) Reviewing 25 years of testing technique experiment. Empir Softw Eng 9:7–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kempenes VB (2007) Quality of design, analysis and reporting of software engineering experiments—a systematic review. Ph.D. dissertation Nr 671, University of Oslo. ISSN 1501-7710Google Scholar
  16. Kampenes VB, Dybå T, Hannay JE, Sjøberg DIK (2007) A systematic review of effect size in software engineering experiments. Inf Softw Technol 49(11–12):1073–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kitchenham B, Pfleeger S, Pickard L, Jones P, Hoaglin D, Emam K, Rosenberg J (2002) Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28:721–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kitchenham B, Dybå T, Jørgensen M (2004) Evidence-based software engineering. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’04). Scotland, UK, 273–284Google Scholar
  19. Kitchenham BA, Mendes E, Travassos GH (2007) Cross versus within-company cost estimation studies: a systematic review. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(5):316–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lajeunesse MJ, Forbes M (2003) Variable reporting and quantitative reviews: a comparison of three meta-analytical techniques. Ecol Lett 6:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mendes E (2005). A systematic review of web engineering research. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering. Noosa Heads, Australia, 498–507Google Scholar
  22. Petitti D (2000) Meta-analysis, decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Singer J (1999) Using the American Psychological Association (APA) style guidelines to report experimental results. Proceedings of the Workshop on Empirical Studies in Software Maintenance, Oxford, UK, 2–5Google Scholar
  24. Sjøberg D, Hannay J, Hansen O, Kampenes V, Karahasanovic A, Liborg N, Rekdal A (2005) A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31:733–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Straus SE, Richardson W, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2005) Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. van Rijsbergen CJ (1979) Information retrieval. Department of Computer Science, University of Glasgow, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  27. Zelkowitz MV, Wallace DR (1998) Experimental models for validating technology. IEEE Comput 31(5):23–31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de InformáticaUniversidad Politénica de MadridBoadilla del MonteSpain
  2. 2.Universidad Simón BolívarCaracasVenezuela

Personalised recommendations