article

Further Experiences with Scenarios and Checklists

Authors:

M. RoperAuthors Info & Claims

Empirical Software Engineering, Volume 3, Issue 1

Pages 37 - 64

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009735805377

Published: 01 July 1998 Publication History

Abstract

Software inspection is one of the best methods of verifying software documents. Software inspection is a complex process, with many possible variations, most of which have received little or no evaluation. This paper reports on the evaluation of one component of the inspection process, detection aids, specifically using Scenario or Checklist approaches. The evaluation is by subject-based experimentation, and is currently one of three independent experiments on the same hypothesis. The paper describes the experimental process, the resulting analysis of the experimental data, and attempts to compare the results in this experiment with the other experiments. This replication is broadly supportive of the results from the original experiment, namely, that the Scenario approach is superior to the Checklist approach; and that the meeting component of a software inspection is not an effective defect detection mechanism. This experiment also tentatively proposes additional relationships between general academic performance and individual inspection performance; and between meeting loss and group inspection performance.

References

[1]

Basili, V. R., and Weiss, D. M. 1981. Evaluation of software requirements document by analysis of change data. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Software Enginering, 314-323.

Digital Library

[2]

Cheng, B., and Jeffery, R. 1996. Comparing inspection strategies for software requirement specifications. Proceedings of the 1996 Australian Software Engineering Conference, 203-211.

Digital Library

[3]

Cohen, J. 1969. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press, first edition.

[4]

Doolan, E. P. 1992. Experience with Fagan's inspection method. Software-Practice and Experience 22(2): 173-182.

Digital Library

[5]

Ebenau, R. G., and Strauss, S. H. 1994. Software Inspection Process. McGraw-Hill.

Digital Library

[6]

Fagan, M. E. 1976. Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal 15(3): 182-211.

Digital Library

[7]

Fagan, M. E. 1986. Advances in software inspection. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 12(7): 744- 751.

Digital Library

[8]

Gilb, T., and Graham, D. 1993. Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley.

Digital Library

[9]

Heninger, K. L. 1980. Specifying software requirements for complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 6(1): 2-13.

Digital Library

[10]

Kelly, J. C., Sherif, J. S., and Hops, J. 1992. An analysis of defect densities found during software inspections. Journal of Systems Software 17: 111-117.

Digital Library

[11]

Kirby, J. 1984. Example NRL/SCR software requirements for an automobile cruise control and monitoring system. Technical report, TR-87-07, Wang Institute for Graduate Studies.

[12]

Lanubile, F., and Visaggio, G. 1995. Assessing defect detection methods for software requirements inspections through external replication. Technical Report, University of Bari, Dipartimento di Informatica.

[13]

McCarthy, P., Porter, A., Siy, H., and Votta, L. 1995. An experiment to assess cost-benefits of inspection meetings and their alternatives. Technical Report, University of Maryland, Dept. Computer Science.

Digital Library

[14]

Miller, J., Daly, J., Wood, M., Roper, M., and Brooks, A. 1997. Statistical power and its subcomponents--missing and misunderstood concepts in empirical software engineering research. Journal of Information and Software Technology 39: 285-295.

[15]

Parnas, D. L., and Weiss, D. M. 1985. Active design reviews: Principles and practices. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Software Engineering, 132-136.

Digital Library

[16]

Porter, A. A., and Votta, L. G. 1994. An experiment to assess different defect detection methods for software requirements inspections. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, 103-112.

Digital Library

[17]

Porter, A. A., Votta, L. G., and Basili, V. R., 1995a. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: A replicated experiment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(6): 563-575.

Digital Library

[18]

Porter, A. A., Votta, L. G., and Basili, V. R., 1995b. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: A replicated experiment. Technical report, University of Maryland, Dept. Computer Science.

Digital Library

[19]

Russell, G. W. 1991. Experience with inspection in ultralarge-scale developments. IEEE Software 8(1): 25-31.

Digital Library

[20]

Schneider, G. M., Martin, J., and Tsai, W. T. 1992. An experimental study of fault detecton in user requirements. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1(2): 188-204.

Digital Library

[21]

Votta, L. G., Jr. 1993. Does every inspection need a meeting? Proceedings of the First ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, December, 107-114.

Digital Library

[22]

van Schouwen, J. 1990. The A-7 requirements model: Re-examination for real-time systems and an application to monitoring systems. Technical report, TR-90-276, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.

Cited By

Daun MBrings J(2023)Investigating Factors Influencing Students’ Assessment of Conceptual ModelsProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3593434.3593960(470-474)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593434.3593960
Daun MBrings J(2023)Aggregating N-fold Requirements Inspection ResultsProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3593434.3593465(339-347)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593434.3593465
Daun MBrings JWeyer T(2023)Model inspections in the engineering of collaborative cyber‐physical systems with instance‐level review diagramsJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.239235:5Online publication date: 25-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/smr.2392
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Evaluation of Usage-Based Reading—Conclusions after Three Experiments

Software inspections have been introduced in software engineering in order to detect faults before testing is performed. Reading techniques provide reviewers in software inspections with guidelines on how they should check the documents under ...
Code Inspection Supported by Stepwise Abstraction and Visualization
ICEIS 2014: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2

Background: In order to inspect source code effectively and efficiently, in a previous work the use of visualization for supporting the reading technique Stepwise Abstraction was proposed and implemented in the CRISTA tool. Visualization aids code ...
The impact of time controlled reading on software inspection effectiveness and efficiency: a controlled experiment
ESEM '08: Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement

Reading techniques help to guide reviewers during individual software inspections. In this experiment, we completely transfer the principle of statistical usage testing to inspection reading techniques for the first time. Statistical usage testing ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Empirical Software Engineering

Empirical Software Engineering Volume 3, Issue 1

1998

111 pages

ISSN:1382-3256

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Copyright © 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Publisher

Kluwer Academic Publishers

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 July 1998

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

40
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 16 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Daun MBrings J(2023)Investigating Factors Influencing Students’ Assessment of Conceptual ModelsProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3593434.3593960(470-474)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593434.3593960
Daun MBrings J(2023)Aggregating N-fold Requirements Inspection ResultsProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3593434.3593465(339-347)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593434.3593465
Daun MBrings JWeyer T(2023)Model inspections in the engineering of collaborative cyber‐physical systems with instance‐level review diagramsJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.239235:5Online publication date: 25-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/smr.2392
Brings JDaun M(2020)Towards automated safety analysis for architectures of dynamically forming networks of cyber-physical systemsProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops10.1145/3387940.3391474(258-265)Online publication date: 27-Jun-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3387940.3391474
Daun MBrings JWeyer T(2020)Do Instance-level Review Diagrams Support Validation Processes of Cyber-Physical System SpecificationsProceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Processes10.1145/3379177.3388893(11-20)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3379177.3388893
Daun MBrings JKrajinski LWeyer TSutton SArmbrust OHebig R(2019)On the benefits of using dedicated models in validation processes for behavioral specificationsProceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Processes10.1109/ICSSP.2019.00016(44-53)Online publication date: 25-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ICSSP.2019.00016
Spadini DPalomba FBaum THanenberg SBruntink MBacchelli AAtlee JBultan TWhittle J(2019)Test-driven code reviewProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering10.1109/ICSE.2019.00110(1061-1072)Online publication date: 25-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00110
Karras ORisch ASchneider KRainer AMacDonell SKeung J(2018)Interrelating Use Cases and Associated Requirements by LinksProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 201810.1145/3210459.3210460(2-12)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3210459.3210460
Bernrdez BDurn AParejo JRuizCorts A(2018)An experimental replication on the effect of the practice of mindfulness in conceptual modeling performanceJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.104136:C(153-172)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.104
Zhang HWang SYue TAli SLiu C(2018)Search and similarity based selection of use case scenariosEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-017-9500-x23:1(87-164)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-017-9500-x
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents