Mirko Perkusich

Rohit Gheyi, Danyllo Albuquerque, Márcio Ribeiro et al.

Semi-structured interviews are widely used in empirical software engineering (ESE), but they are resource-intensive and difficult to coordinate across schedules, locations, and natural languages. This experience report examines a customized MyGPT used to conduct short, self-administered interviews in two ESE studies: one on refactoring practices and another on generative AI in Scrum-related activities. Participants accessed the interviewer through shared links, used voice interaction, selected a preferred natural language, and completed the interview without a researcher present. The AI followed a predefined protocol and generated a structured synthesis that participants voluntarily submitted; these artifacts were not treated as verbatim transcripts. We analyzed 66 submissions and questionnaire responses, and audited artifact format, language, length, and protocol consistency. Of the submitted artifacts, 92.4% followed the expected synthesis format, 65 were predominantly in Portuguese and one in English, and two conflicted with the reported protocol. Participants generally rated the experience positively: 90.9% reported a positive overall experience and comfort, 95.5% considered the questions clear, 97.0% rated the pace positively, and 89.4% would participate again. Reported limitations included generic questions, limited sensitivity to answers, insufficient depth, privacy concerns, and missed human interaction. The findings support the operational viability and acceptability of this workflow among analyzed respondents, but do not establish completion rates, time savings, summary fidelity, or equivalence to human-conducted interviews. AI interviewers should therefore be treated as a complementary option for short, focused, low-risk studies, with protocol design, privacy guidance, artifact validation, and human oversight.

Mirko Perkusich, Danyllo Albuquerque, João Paiva et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in Agile Software Development for documentation, coaching, and training. As practitioners adopt these tools to prepare for certifications such as Professional Scrum Master (PSM), a key question is whether LLMs can reliably reason about Scrum, a framework with normative, well-defined rules described in the Scrum Guide (2020). This paper examines how different prompt techniques affect the factual accuracy of LLM responses to Scrum certification-style questions. A dataset of 993 validated PSM-aligned questions was answered by GPT-5 using three techniques: zero-shot, chain-of-thought, and with-source citation. All prompts achieved certification-level accuracy above 85\%, with the citation-based variant performing best (89.1\%) and yielding the lowest error rate. Correct answers concentrated in well-defined topics, such as \emph{Definition of Done}, Events, and Product Backlog Management, and in single-answer multiple-choice items, while multi-select questions and more interpretive areas, such as Scrum Team and Product Value, were less stable. Among questions where at least one prompt failed (16.2\%), errors clustered into misalignment with the Scrum Guide (28\%), content outside its scope (34\%), and outdated or biased interpretations (38\%). Overall, prompt techniques produced modest but consistent improvements, particularly in reducing misinterpretation and version drift, supporting more reliable use of LLMs in Agile learning and certification preparation.

Robson Alves Vilar, Emanuel Dantas Filho, Ademar França de Sousa Neto et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in exam- and certification-style question answering tasks, where their ability to retrieve, interpret, and apply domain-specific knowledge can be systematically assessed. In Software Engineering, such settings are particularly relevant when questions depend on strict adherence to normative definitions, roles, artifacts, and rules. This paper evaluates the performance of three contemporary LLMs, \textit{GPT-5 mini}, \textit{Gemini 3 Flash}, and \textit{DeepSeek Chat 3.2}, in answering 993 Scrum certification-style questions aligned with the Professional Scrum Master I (PSM I) assessment format. We evaluated the models under three prompting strategies (\textit{zero-shot}, \textit{chain-of-thought}, and \textit{source-grounded}), with repeated executions to assess intra-model stability. We also analyzed performance across Scrum topics and question formats, complemented by a qualitative analysis of recurring error patterns in incorrect answers. Results revealed clear differences among models, with Gemini 3 Flash achieving the highest accuracy, followed by GPT-5 mini and DeepSeek Chat 3.2, while intra-model variability remained low across all conditions. By question format, the models achieved the highest accuracy on single-answer multiple-choice items, whereas multi-select and True/False questions were more error-prone. By topic, performance was more consistent in normatively explicit areas such as Artifacts, Empiricism, and Product Value, but more fragile in Scrum Values, Self-Managing Teams, and Stakeholders \& Customers. The qualitative analysis showed that errors were systematic rather than random, involving overgeneralization, restrictive wording, compound distractors, and conflicts between common market interpretations and strict Scrum definitions.