Sira Vegas

Oscar Dieste, Fernando Uyaguari, Sira Vegas et al.

Background: Test suites are frequently used to quantify relevant software attributes, such as quality or productivity. Problem: We have detected that the same response variable, measured using different test suites, yields different experiment results. Aims: Assess to which extent differences in test case construction influence measurement accuracy and experimental outcomes. Method: Two industry experiments have been measured using two different test suites, one generated using an ad-hoc method and another using equivalence partitioning. The accuracy of the measures has been studied using standard procedures, such as ISO 5725, Bland-Altman and Interclass Correlation Coefficients. Results: There are differences in the values of the response variables up to +-60%, depending on the test suite (ad-hoc vs. equivalence partitioning) used. Conclusions: The disclosure of datasets and analysis code is insufficient to ensure the reproducibility of SE experiments. Experimenters should disclose all experimental materials needed to perform independent measurement and re-analysis.

Valentina Lenarduzzi, Oscar Dieste, Davide Fucci et al.

Background. Software Engineering (SE) researchers extensively perform experiments with human subjects. Well-defined samples are required to ensure external validity. Samples are selected \textit{purposely} or by \textit{convenience}, limiting the generalizability of results. Objective. We aim to depict the current status of participants selection in empirical SE, identifying the main threats and how they are mitigated. We draft a robust approach to participants' selection. Method. We reviewed existing participants' selection guidelines in SE, and performed a preliminary literature review to find out how participants' selection is conducted in SE in practice. % and 3) we summarized the main issues identified. Results. We outline a new selection methodology, by 1) defining the characteristics of the desired population, 2) locating possible sources of sampling available for researchers, and 3) identifying and reducing the "distance" between the selected sample and its corresponding population. Conclusion. We propose a roadmap to develop and empirically validate the selection methodology.

Adrian Santos, Sira Vegas, Oscar Dieste et al.

Context: Test-driven development (TDD) is an agile software development approach that has been widely claimed to improve software quality. However, the extent to which TDD improves quality appears to be largely dependent upon the characteristics of the study in which it is evaluated (e.g., the research method, participant type, programming environment, etc.). The particularities of each study make the aggregation of results untenable. Objectives: The goal of this paper is to: increase the accuracy and generalizability of the results achieved in isolated experiments on TDD, provide joint conclusions on the performance of TDD across different industrial and academic settings, and assess the extent to which the characteristics of the experiments affect the quality-related performance of TDD. Method: We conduct a family of 12 experiments on TDD in academia and industry. We aggregate their results by means of meta-analysis. We perform exploratory analyses to identify variables impacting the quality-related performance of TDD. Results: TDD novices achieve a slightly higher code quality with iterative test-last development (i.e., ITL, the reverse approach of TDD) than with TDD. The task being developed largely determines quality. The programming environment, the order in which TDD and ITL are applied, or the learning effects from one development approach to another do not appear to affect quality. The quality-related performance of professionals using TDD drops more than for students. We hypothesize that this may be due to their being more resistant to change and potentially less motivated than students. Conclusion: Previous studies seem to provide conflicting results on TDD performance (i.e., positive vs. negative, respectively). We hypothesize that these conflicting results may be due to different study durations, experiment participants being unfamiliar with the TDD process...

Adrian Santos, Sira Vegas, Markku Oivo et al.

Context: It has been argued that software engineering replications are useful for verifying the results of previous experiments. However, it has not yet been agreed how to check whether the results hold across replications. Besides, some authors suggest that replications that do not verify the results of previous experiments can be used to identify contextual variables causing the discrepancies. Objective: Study how to assess the (dis)similarity of the results of SE replications when they are compared to verify the results of previous experiments and understand how to identify whether contextual variables are influencing results. Method: We run simulations to learn how different ways of comparing replication results behave when verifying the results of previous experiments. We illustrate how to deal with context-induced changes. To do this, we analyze three groups of replications from our own research on test-driven development and testing techniques. Results: The direct comparison of p-values and effect sizes does not appear to be suitable for verifying the results of previous experiments and examining the variables possibly affecting the results in software engineering. Analytical methods such as meta-analysis should be used to assess the similarity of software engineering replication results and identify discrepancies in results. Conclusion: The results achieved in baseline experiments should no longer be regarded as a result that needs to be reproduced, but as a small piece of evidence within a larger picture that only emerges after assembling many small pieces to complete the puzzle.

Paul Ralph, Nauman bin Ali, Sebastian Baltes et al.

Empirical Standards are natural-language models of a scientific community's expectations for a specific kind of study (e.g. a questionnaire survey). The ACM SIGSOFT Paper and Peer Review Quality Initiative generated empirical standards for research methods commonly used in software engineering. These living documents, which should be continuously revised to reflect evolving consensus around research best practices, will improve research quality and make peer review more effective, reliable, transparent and fair.

Adrian Santos, Sira Vegas, Fernando Uyaguari et al.

Context: Software Engineering (SE) experiments suffer from threats to validity that may impact their results. Replication allows researchers building on top of previous experiments' weaknesses and increasing the reliability of the findings. Objective: Illustrating the benefits of replication to increase the reliability of the findings and uncover moderator variables. Method: We replicate an experiment on Test-Driven-Development (TDD) and address some of its threats to validity and those of a previous replication. We compare the replications' results and hypothesize on plausible moderators impacting results. Results: Differences across TDD replications' results might be due to the operationalization of the response variables, the allocation of subjects to treatments, the allowance to work outside the laboratory, the provision of stubs, or the task. Conclusion: Replications allow examining the robustness of the findings, hypothesizing on plausible moderators influencing results, and strengthening the evidence obtained.

Adrian Santos, Sira Vegas, Markku Oivo et al.

Context: Researchers from different groups and institutions are collaborating on building groups of experiments by means of replication (i.e., conducting groups of replications). Disparate aggregation techniques are being applied to analyze groups of replications. The application of unsuitable techniques to aggregate replication results may undermine the potential of groups of replications to provide in-depth insights from experiment results. Objectives: Provide an analysis procedure with a set of embedded guidelines to aggregate software engineering (SE) replication results. Method: We compare the characteristics of groups of replications for SE and other mature experimental disciplines such as medicine and pharmacology. In view of their differences, the limitations with regard to the joint data analysis of groups of SE replications and the guidelines provided in mature experimental disciplines to analyze groups of replications, we build an analysis procedure with a set of embedded guidelines specifically tailored to the analysis of groups of SE replications. We apply the proposed analysis procedure to a representative group of SE replications to illustrate its use. Results: All the information contained within the raw data should be leveraged during the aggregation of replication results. The analysis procedure that we propose encourages the use of stratified individual participant data and aggregated data in tandem to analyze groups of SE replications. Conclusion: The aggregation techniques used to analyze groups of replications should be justified in research articles. This will increase the reliability and transparency of joint results. The proposed guidelines should ease this endeavor.