Is External Code Quality Correlated with Programming Experience or Feelgood Factor?

  • Lech Madeyski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4044)


This paper is inspired by an article by Müller and Padberg who study the feelgood factor and programming experience, as candidate drivers for the pair programming performance. We not only reveal a possible threat to validity of empirical results presented by Müller and Padberg but also perform an independent research. Our objective is to provide empirical evidence whether external code quality is correlated with the feelgood factor, or with programming experience. Our empirical study is based on a controlled experiment with MSc students. It appeared that the external code quality is correlated with the feelgood factor, and programming experience, in the case of pairs using a classic (test-last) testing approach. The generalization of the results is limited due to the fact that MSc students participated in the study. The research revealed that both the feelgood factor and programming experience may be the external code quality drivers.


Programming Experience Acceptance Test Laboratory Session User Story Pair Performance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Williams, L., Kessler, R.: Pair Programming Illuminated. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nosek, J.T.: The case for collaborative programming. Communications of the ACM 41(3), 105–108 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams, L., Kessler, R.R., Cunningham, W., Jeffries, R.: Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software 17(4), 19–25 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams, L.: The Collaborative Software Process. PhD thesis, University of Utah (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nawrocki, J.R., Wojciechowski, A.: Experimental evaluation of pair programming. In: ESCOM 2001: European Software Control and Metrics, pp. 269–276 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nawrocki, J.R., Jasiński, M., Olek, L., Lange, B.: Pair Programming vs. Side-by-Side Programming. In: Richardson, I., Abrahamsson, P., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3792, pp. 28–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams, L., Maximilien, E.M., Vouk, M.: Test-Driven Development as a Defect-Reduction Practice. In: ISSRE 2003: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 34–48. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maximilien, E.M., Williams, L.A.: Assessing Test-Driven Development at IBM. In: ICSE 2003: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 564–569. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    George, B., Williams, L.A.: An Initial Investigation of Test Driven Development in Industry. In: SAC 2003: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1135–1139. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    George, B., Williams, L.A.: A structured experiment of test-driven development. Information and Software Technology 46(5), 337–342 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madeyski, L.: Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of Pair Programming and Test-Driven Development on the External Code Quality. In: Zieliński, K., Szmuc, T. (eds.) Software Engineering: Evolution and Emerging Technologies. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 130, pp. 113–123. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Müller, M.M., Hagner, O.: Experiment about test-first programming. IEE Proceedings - Software 149(5), 131–136 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Müller, M.M.: Are Reviews an Alternative to Pair Programming? In: EASE 2003: Conference on Empirical Assessment In Software Engineering (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller, M.M.: Are Reviews an Alternative to Pair Programming? Empirical Software Engineering 9(4), 335–351 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hulkko, H., Abrahamsson, P.: A Multiple Case Study on the Impact of Pair Programming on Product Quality. In: ICSE 2005: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 495–504. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Müller, M.M., Padberg, F.: An empirical study about the feelgood factor in pair programming. In: METRICS 2004: Proceedings of the Software Metrics, 10th International Symposium on (METRICS 2004), pp. 151–158. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams, L.A., Kessler, R.R.: All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Commun. ACM 43(5), 108–114 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Erdogmus, H., Morisio, M., Torchiano, M.: On the Effectiveness of the Test-First Approach to Programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(3), 226–237 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T.: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.L., Pickard, L., Jones, P., Hoaglin, D.C., Emam, K.E., Rosenberg, J.: Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(8), 721–734 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Porter, A., Votta, L.: Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: A replication using professional subjects. Empirical Softw. Engg. 3(4), 355–379 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Höst, M., Wohlin, C., Thelin, T.: Experimental context classification: incentives and experience of subjects. In: ICSE 2005: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 470–478. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lech Madeyski
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Applied InformaticsWroclaw University of TechnologyWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations