journal article·2020-10-12Open access

An Expert Judgment in Source Code Quality Research Domain—A Comparative Study between Professionals and Students

Luka Pavlič, Marjan Heričko, Tina Beranič

Applied Sciences· Volume 10· Issue 20

Abstract

In scientific research, evidence is often based on empirical data. Scholars tend to rely on students as participants in experiments in order to validate their thesis. They are an obvious choice when it comes to scientific research: They are usually willing to participate and are often themselves pursuing an education in the experiment’s domain. The software engineering domain is no exception. However, readers, authors, and reviewers do sometimes question the validity of experimental data that is gathered in controlled experiments from students. This is why we will address this difficult-to-answer question: Are students a proper substitute for experienced professional engineers while performing experiments in a typical software engineering experiment. As we demonstrate in this paper, it is not a “yes or no” answer. In some aspects, students were not outperformed by professionals, but in others, students would not only give different answers compared to professionals, but their answers would also diverge. In this paper we will show and analyze the results of a controlled experiment in the source code quality domain in terms of comparing student and professional responses. We will show that authors have to be careful when employing students in experiments, especially when complex and advanced domains are addressed. However, they may be a proper substitution in cases, where non-advanced aspects are required.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Software Engineering Research · Software Reliability and Analysis Research · Software Testing and Debugging Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Koroška Cesta 46, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia

Funding

Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS

References (24)

Show source-provided references
1. SQALE (2020, August 29). SQALE—Software Quality Assessment based on Lifecycle Expectations. Available online: http://www.sqale.org.
2. ISO/IEC 25040 (2011). Systems and Software Engineering—Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—Evaluation Process, ISO/IEC.
3. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Hst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., and Wessln, A. (2012). Experimentation in Software Engineering, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2 ↗
4. Daun, M., Hübscher, C., and Weyer, T. (2017). Controlled Experiments with Student Participants in Software Engineering: Preliminary Results from a Systematic Mapping Study. arXiv.
5. Basili, V.R. (1996, January 25–30). The role of experimentation in software engineering: past, current, and future. Proceedings of the IEEE 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, Berlin, Germany.
6. GIT-Scm (2020, August 29). GIT. Available online: https://git-scm.com.
7. Empirical software engineering experts on the use of students and professionals in experiments10.1007/s10664-017-9523-3 ↗
8. Feitelson, D.G. (2015). Using Students as Experimental Subjects in Software Engineering Research—A Review and Discussion of the Evidence. arXiv.
9. Empirical Research in Software Engineering—A Literature Survey10.1007/s11390-018-1864-x ↗
10. A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering10.1109/TSE.2005.97 ↗
11. Four commentaries on the use of students and professionals in empirical software engineering experiments10.1007/s10664-018-9655-0 ↗
12. Software Engineering Economics10.1109/TSE.1984.5010193 ↗
13. Expert judgement as an estimating method10.1016/0950-5849(95)01045-9 ↗
14. Institute, P.M. (2017). Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), PMBOK® Guide, Project Management Institute. [6th ed.].
15. Practical knowledge and its importance for software product quality10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.006 ↗
16. Yamashita, A., and Moonen, L. (2012, January 23–28). Do code smells reflect important maintainability aspects?. Proceedings of the 2012 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), Trento, Italy.10.1109/ICSM.2012.6405287 ↗
17. The Usefulness of Software Metric Thresholds for Detection of Bad Smells and Fault Prediction10.1016/j.infsof.2019.08.005 ↗
18. Oliveira, P., Valente, M.T., Bergel, A., and Serebrenik, A. (October, January 27). Validating metric thresholds with developers: An early result. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, Bremen, Germany.
19. Software Quality Evaluation Based on Expert Judgement10.1023/A:1023741528816 ↗
20. Understanding metric-based detectable smells in Python software: A comparative study10.1016/j.infsof.2017.09.011 ↗
21. TIBCOSoftware (2020, August 05). JasperReports® Library Source Code. Available online: https://github.com/TIBCOSoftware/jasperreports/blob/master/jasperreports/src/net/sf/jasperreports/engine/export/JRTextExporter.java.
22. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters10.1037/h0031619 ↗
23. Denham, B. (2017). Interrater Agreement Measures for Nominal and Ordinal Data. Categ. Stat. Commun. Res., 232–254.10.1002/9781119407201.ch11 ↗
24. Landis, J.R., and Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174.10.2307/2529310 ↗