BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Natalia Juristo

Natalia Juristo appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Software EngineeringGeneral Literature

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Test cases as a measurement instrument in experimentation

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Procedure and Guidelines for Analyzing Groups of Software Engineering Replications

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Increasing Validity Through Replication: An Illustrative TDD Case

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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Researcher Bias in Software Engineering Experiments: a Qualitative Investigation

Researcher Bias (RB) occurs when researchers influence the results of an empirical study based on their expectations.RB might be due to the use of Questionable Research Practices(QRPs). In research fields like medicine, blinding techniques have been applied to counteract RB. We conducted an explorative qualitative survey to investigate RB in Software Engineering (SE)experiments, with respect to (i) QRPs potentially leading to RB, (ii) causes behind RB, and (iii) possible actions to counteract including blinding techniques. Data collection was based on semi-structured interviews. We interviewed nine active experts in the empirical SE community. We then analyzed the transcripts of these interviews through thematic analysis. We found that some QRPs are acceptable in certain cases. Also, it appears that the presence of RB is perceived in SE and, to counteract RB, a number of solutions have been highlighted: some are intended for SE researchers and others for the boards of SE research outlets.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

A Dissection of the Test-Driven Development Process: Does It Really Matter to Test-First or to Test-Last?

Background: Test-driven development (TDD) is a technique that repeats short coding cycles interleaved with testing. The developer first writes a unit test for the desired functionality, followed by the necessary production code, and refactors the code. Many empirical studies neglect unique process characteristics related to TDD iterative nature. Aim: We formulate four process characteristic: sequencing, granularity, uniformity, and refactoring effort. We investigate how these characteristics impact quality and productivity in TDD and related variations. Method: We analyzed 82 data points collected from 39 professionals, each capturing the process used while performing a specific development task. We built regression models to assess the impact of process characteristics on quality and productivity. Quality was measured by functional correctness. Result: Quality and productivity improvements were primarily positively associated with the granularity and uniformity. Sequencing, the order in which test and production code are written, had no important influence. Refactoring effort was negatively associated with both outcomes. We explain the unexpected negative correlation with quality by possible prevalence of mixed refactoring. Conclusion: The claimed benefits of TDD may not be due to its distinctive test-first dynamic, but rather due to the fact that TDD-like processes encourage fine-grained, steady steps that improve focus and flow.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access