On (Mis)perceptions of testing effectiveness: an empirical study (2402.07222v1)
Abstract: A recurring problem in software development is incorrect decision making on the techniques, methods and tools to be used. Mostly, these decisions are based on developers' perceptions about them. A factor influencing people's perceptions is past experience, but it is not the only one. In this research, we aim to discover how well the perceptions of the defect detection effectiveness of different techniques match their real effectiveness in the absence of prior experience. To do this, we conduct an empirical study plus a replication. During the original study, we conduct a controlled experiment with students applying two testing techniques and a code review technique. At the end of the experiment, they take a survey to find out which technique they perceive to be most effective. The results show that participants' perceptions are wrong and that this mismatch is costly in terms of quality. In order to gain further insight into the results, we replicate the controlled experiment and extend the survey to include questions about participants' opinions on the techniques and programs. The results of the replicated study confirm the findings of the original study and suggest that participants' perceptions might be based not on their opinions about complexity or preferences for techniques but on how well they think that they have applied the techniques.
- Altman, D.: Practial Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman and Hall (1991)
- In: Proceedings of Requirements Engineering for Software Quality (2002)
- The Canadian Journal of Statistics 27, 3–23 (1999)
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 13(2), 1278–1296 (1987)
- Empirical Software Engineering 1(2), 133–164 (1996)
- International Thomson Computer Press (1990)
- Bhattacharya, P.: Quantitative decision-making in software engineering. Ph.D. thesis, University of California Riverside (2012)
- Software Engineering Journal pp. 43–51 (1992)
- Biffl, S.: Analysis of the impact of reading technique and inspector capability on individual inspection performance. In: 7th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 136–145 (2000)
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(11), 770–793 (2004)
- Computers in Human Behavior 52, 373–378 (2015)
- Journal of Systems and Software 86(6), 1613–1637 (2013)
- Deak, A.: Understanding socio-technical factors influencing testers in software development organizations. In: 36th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC’12), pp. 438–441 (2012)
- In: Proceedings of the 38th international conference on software engineering, pp. 108–119 (2016)
- Software Quality Journal pp. 1–39 (2016)
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 40(10), 1025–1041 (2014)
- Empirical Software Engineering (2017). DOIÂ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9471-3
- In: 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, p. 47–57 (2002)
- IEEE software 22(1), 58–65 (2005)
- Everitt, B.: The analysis of contingency tables. In: Monographs statistics and applied probability, 45. Chapman & Hall/CRC (2000)
- Empirical Software Engineering (2017). DOIÂ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9523-3
- Wiley & Sons (2003)
- In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE’17, pp. 65–69 (2017)
- In: Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), 2017 12th Iberian Conference on, pp. 1–6 (2017)
- In: 2nd International Workshop on CrowdSourcing in Software Engineering (CSI-SE), pp. 32–37 (2015)
- Communication Methods and Measures 1, 77–89 (2007)
- In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 191–200 (1994)
- Empirical Software Engineering 19(6), 1921–1955 (2014)
- In: Proceedings of the Fifth European Software Engineering Conference, pp. 84–89
- In: 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE’15), pp. 1–7 (2015)
- In: European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems (2010)
- pp. 637–642 (2009)
- Information and Software Technology 56(8), 973–990 (2014)
- Duxbury Thomson Learning (2000)
- Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977)
- Linger, R.: Structured Programming: Theory and Practice (The Systems programming series). Addison-Wesley (1979)
- Empirical Software Engineering 11(1), 119–142 (2006)
- In: 9th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications (ICSOFT-EA), pp. 305–314 (2014)
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 41(6), 545–564 (2015)
- Myers, G.: A controlled experiment in program testing and code walkthroughs/inspections. Communications of the ACM 21(9), 760–768 (1978)
- Wiley-Interscience (2004)
- Empirical Software Engineering 20(6), 1898–1917 (2015)
- ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5(2), 99–118 (1996)
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(5), 337–344 (1994)
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(6), 563–575 (1995)
- Information and Software Technology 39, 763–775 (1997)
- Empirical Software Engineering 13, 211–218 (2008)
- Empirical Software Engineering 9, 77–110 (2004)
- Empirical Software Engineering 10(4), 437–466 (2005)
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(4), 551–565 (2009)
- Weyuker, E.: The complexity of data flow criteria for test data selection. Information Processing Letters 19(2), 103–109 (1984)
- Springer (2014)
- Software Quality Journal 4, 69–83 (1995)
- BMC Medical Research Methodology 16(93) (2016)
- Series on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 12, 229–263 (2003)
Sponsor
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.