An expirimental comparison of usage-based and checklist-based reading

Software quality can be defined as the customers' perception of how a system works. Inspection is a method to monitor and control the quality throughout the development cycle. Reading techniques applied to inspections help reviewers to stay focused on the important parts of an artifact when ins...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:IEEE transactions on software engineering 2003-08, Vol.29 (8), p.687
Main Authors: Thelin, Thomas, Runeson, Per, Wohlin, Claes
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Comparative analysis
Design specifications
Experiments
Inspections
Methods
Reading
Software development
Software engineering
Software quality
Software reviews
Statistical analysis
Studies
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue 8
container_start_page 687
container_title IEEE transactions on software engineering
container_volume 29
creator Thelin, Thomas
Runeson, Per
Wohlin, Claes
description Software quality can be defined as the customers' perception of how a system works. Inspection is a method to monitor and control the quality throughout the development cycle. Reading techniques applied to inspections help reviewers to stay focused on the important parts of an artifact when inspecting. However, many reading techniques focus on finding as many faults as possible, regardless of their importance. Usage-based reading helps reviewers to focus on the most important parts of a software artifact from a user's point of view. This paper presents an experiment which compares usage-based and checklist-based reading. The results show that reviewers applying usage-based reading are more efficient and effective in detecting the most critical faults from a user's point of view than reviewers using checklist-based reading. Usage-based reading may be preferable for software organizations that utilize or will start utilizing use cases in their software development. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
doi_str_mv 10.1109/TSE.2003.1223644
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_195569092</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>391703271</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_1955690923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNir0OgjAYABujifizOzbuxa-tVToag3GXnVQoWoQWW0h8fB14AKdL7g6hDYWYUpC77JbGDIDHlDF-2O8nKKKSS8IFgymKAGRChEjkHC1CqAFAHI8iQunJYv3pjDettr1qcOHaTnkTnMWuwkNQD03uKugSK1vi4qmLV2NCPzqvVWnsY4VmlWqCXo9cou0lzc5X0nn3HnTo89oN3v5STqUQBwmS8b-mL1H6QRE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>195569092</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An expirimental comparison of usage-based and checklist-based reading</title><source>ABI/INFORM global</source><source>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Journals</source><creator>Thelin, Thomas ; Runeson, Per ; Wohlin, Claes</creator><creatorcontrib>Thelin, Thomas ; Runeson, Per ; Wohlin, Claes</creatorcontrib><description>Software quality can be defined as the customers' perception of how a system works. Inspection is a method to monitor and control the quality throughout the development cycle. Reading techniques applied to inspections help reviewers to stay focused on the important parts of an artifact when inspecting. However, many reading techniques focus on finding as many faults as possible, regardless of their importance. Usage-based reading helps reviewers to focus on the most important parts of a software artifact from a user's point of view. This paper presents an experiment which compares usage-based and checklist-based reading. The results show that reviewers applying usage-based reading are more efficient and effective in detecting the most critical faults from a user's point of view than reviewers using checklist-based reading. Usage-based reading may be preferable for software organizations that utilize or will start utilizing use cases in their software development. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-5589</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-3520</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/TSE.2003.1223644</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IESEDJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: IEEE Computer Society</publisher><subject>Comparative analysis ; Design specifications ; Experiments ; Inspections ; Methods ; Reading ; Software development ; Software engineering ; Software quality ; Software reviews ; Statistical analysis ; Studies</subject><ispartof>IEEE transactions on software engineering, 2003-08, Vol.29 (8), p.687</ispartof><rights>Copyright Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Aug 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/195569092?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,11667,27901,27902,36037,44339</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thelin, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Runeson, Per</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wohlin, Claes</creatorcontrib><title>An expirimental comparison of usage-based and checklist-based reading</title><title>IEEE transactions on software engineering</title><description>Software quality can be defined as the customers' perception of how a system works. Inspection is a method to monitor and control the quality throughout the development cycle. Reading techniques applied to inspections help reviewers to stay focused on the important parts of an artifact when inspecting. However, many reading techniques focus on finding as many faults as possible, regardless of their importance. Usage-based reading helps reviewers to focus on the most important parts of a software artifact from a user's point of view. This paper presents an experiment which compares usage-based and checklist-based reading. The results show that reviewers applying usage-based reading are more efficient and effective in detecting the most critical faults from a user's point of view than reviewers using checklist-based reading. Usage-based reading may be preferable for software organizations that utilize or will start utilizing use cases in their software development. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Design specifications</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Inspections</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Reading</subject><subject>Software development</subject><subject>Software engineering</subject><subject>Software quality</subject><subject>Software reviews</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0098-5589</issn><issn>1939-3520</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNqNir0OgjAYABujifizOzbuxa-tVToag3GXnVQoWoQWW0h8fB14AKdL7g6hDYWYUpC77JbGDIDHlDF-2O8nKKKSS8IFgymKAGRChEjkHC1CqAFAHI8iQunJYv3pjDettr1qcOHaTnkTnMWuwkNQD03uKugSK1vi4qmLV2NCPzqvVWnsY4VmlWqCXo9cou0lzc5X0nn3HnTo89oN3v5STqUQBwmS8b-mL1H6QRE</recordid><startdate>20030801</startdate><enddate>20030801</enddate><creator>Thelin, Thomas</creator><creator>Runeson, Per</creator><creator>Wohlin, Claes</creator><general>IEEE Computer Society</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88K</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2T</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030801</creationdate><title>An expirimental comparison of usage-based and checklist-based reading</title><author>Thelin, Thomas ; Runeson, Per ; Wohlin, Claes</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_1955690923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Design specifications</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Inspections</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Reading</topic><topic>Software development</topic><topic>Software engineering</topic><topic>Software quality</topic><topic>Software reviews</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thelin, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Runeson, Per</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wohlin, Claes</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Telecommunications (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Telecommunications Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>IEEE transactions on software engineering</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thelin, Thomas</au><au>Runeson, Per</au><au>Wohlin, Claes</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An expirimental comparison of usage-based and checklist-based reading</atitle><jtitle>IEEE transactions on software engineering</jtitle><date>2003-08-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>687</spage><pages>687-</pages><issn>0098-5589</issn><eissn>1939-3520</eissn><coden>IESEDJ</coden><abstract>Software quality can be defined as the customers' perception of how a system works. Inspection is a method to monitor and control the quality throughout the development cycle. Reading techniques applied to inspections help reviewers to stay focused on the important parts of an artifact when inspecting. However, many reading techniques focus on finding as many faults as possible, regardless of their importance. Usage-based reading helps reviewers to focus on the most important parts of a software artifact from a user's point of view. This paper presents an experiment which compares usage-based and checklist-based reading. The results show that reviewers applying usage-based reading are more efficient and effective in detecting the most critical faults from a user's point of view than reviewers using checklist-based reading. Usage-based reading may be preferable for software organizations that utilize or will start utilizing use cases in their software development. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>IEEE Computer Society</pub><doi>10.1109/TSE.2003.1223644</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0098-5589
ispartof IEEE transactions on software engineering, 2003-08, Vol.29 (8), p.687
issn 0098-5589
1939-3520
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_195569092
source ABI/INFORM global; IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Journals
subjects Comparative analysis
Design specifications
Experiments
Inspections
Methods
Reading
Software development
Software engineering
Software quality
Software reviews
Statistical analysis
Studies
title An expirimental comparison of usage-based and checklist-based reading
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T18%3A44%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20expirimental%20comparison%20of%20usage-based%20and%20checklist-based%20reading&rft.jtitle=IEEE%20transactions%20on%20software%20engineering&rft.au=Thelin,%20Thomas&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=687&rft.pages=687-&rft.issn=0098-5589&rft.eissn=1939-3520&rft.coden=IESEDJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/TSE.2003.1223644&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E391703271%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_1955690923%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=195569092&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true