221
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    4
    shares
       
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Conference Proceedings: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparing Inspection Methods using Controlled Experiments

      proceedings-article

      1 , 1 , 2 ,

      12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) (EASE)

      Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE)

      26 - 27 June 2008

      Code Inspection, Controlled Experiment, Distributed Inspection, Fagan’s Method, Pair Inspection

      Bookmark

            Abstract

            Objective: In this paper we present an empirical study that was aimed at comparing three software inspection methods, in terms of needed time, precision, and recall values. The main objective of this study is to provide software engineers with some insight into choosing the inspection method to adopt. Method: We conducted a controlled experiment and a replication. These experiments involved 48 Master students in Computer Science at the University of Salerno. In the experiments, 6 academic researchers were also involved. The students had to discover defects within a software artefact using inspection methods that differ in terms of discipline and flexibility. In particular, we selected a disciplined but not flexible method (the Fagan’s process), a disciplined and flexible method (a virtual inspection), and a flexible but not disciplined method (the pair inspection). Results: We observed a significant difference in favour of the Pair Inspection method for the time spent to perform the tasks. The data analysis also revealed a significant difference in favour of the Fagan’s inspection process for precision. Finally, the effect of the inspection method on the recall is not significant. Conclusions: The empirical investigation showed that the discipline and flexibility of an inspection method affect both the time needed to identify defects and the precision of the inspection results. In particular, more flexible methods require less time to inspect a software artefact, while more disciplined methods enable the identification of a lower number of false defects.

            Content

            Author and article information

            Contributors
            Conference
            June 2008
            June 2008
            : 1-10
            Affiliations
            [1 ]Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, University of Salerno

            Via Ponte Don Melillo, Fisciano (SA), ITALY
            [2 ]Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, University of Basilicata

            Viale Dell’Ateneo, Macchia Romana, Potenza, ITALY
            Article
            10.14236/ewic/EASE2008.4
            6531f880-be75-467b-ba0d-d043299de9af
            © Andrea De Lucia et al. Published by BCS Learning and Development Ltd. 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE)

            This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

            12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE)
            EASE
            12
            University of Bari, Italy
            26 - 27 June 2008
            Electronic Workshops in Computing (eWiC)
            Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE)
            Product
            Product Information: 1477-9358BCS Learning & Development
            Self URI (journal page): https://ewic.bcs.org/
            Categories
            Electronic Workshops in Computing

            Comments

            Comment on this article