Quality of Design, Analysis and Reporting of Software Engineering Experiments:A Systematic Review

Background: Like any research discipline, software engineering research must be of a certain quality to be valuable. High quality research in software engineering ensures that knowledge is accumulated and helpful advice is given to the industry. One way of assessing research quality is to conduct systematic reviews of the published research literature. Objective: The purpose of this work was to assess the quality of published experiments in software engineering with respect to the validity of inference and the quality of reporting. More specifically, the aim was to investigate the level of statistical power, the analysis of effect size, the handling of selection bias in quasi-experiments, and the completeness and consistency of the reporting of information regarding subjects, experimental settings, design, analysis, and validity. Furthermore, the work aimed at providing suggestions for improvements, using the potential deficiencies detected as a basis. Method: The quality was assessed by conducting a systematic review of the 113 experiments published in nine major software engineering journals and three conference proceedings in the decade 1993-2002. Results: The review revealed that software engineering experiments were generally designed with unacceptably low power and that inadequate attention was paid to issues of statistical power. Effect sizes were sparsely reported and not interpreted with respect to their practical importance for the particular context. There seemed to be little awareness of the importance of controlling for selection bias in quasi-experiments. Moreover, the review revealed a need for more complete and standardized reporting of information, which is crucial for understanding software engineering experiments and judging their results. Implications: The consequence of low power is that the actual effects of software engineering technologies will not be detected to an acceptable extent. The lack of reporting of effect sizes and the improper interpretation of effect sizes result in ignorance of the practical importance, and thereby the relevance to industry, of experimental results. The lack of control for selection bias in quasi-experiments may make these experiments less credible than randomized experiments. This is an unsatisfactory situation, because quasi-experiments serve an important role in investigating cause-effect relationships in software engineering, for example, in industrial settings. Finally, the incomplete and unstandardized reporting makes it difficult for the reader to understand an experiment and judge its results. Conclusions: Insufficient quality was revealed in the reviewed experiments. This has implications for inferences drawn from the experiments and might in turn lead to the accumulation of erroneous information and the offering of misleading advice to the industry. Ways to improve this situation are suggested

Comparative analysis of meta-analysis methods: when to use which?

Background: Several meta-analysis methods can be used to quantitatively combine the results of a group of experiments, including the weighted mean difference, statistical vote counting, the parametric response ratio and the non-parametric response ratio. The software engineering community has focused on the weighted mean difference method. However, other meta-analysis methods have distinct strengths, such as being able to be used when variances are not reported. There are as yet no guidelines to indicate which method is best for use in each case. Aim: Compile a set of rules that SE researchers can use to ascertain which aggregation method is best for use in the synthesis phase of a systematic review. Method: Monte Carlo simulation varying the number of experiments in the meta analyses, the number of subjects that they include, their variance and effect size. We empirically calculated the reliability and statistical power in each case Results: WMD is generally reliable if the variance is low, whereas its power depends on the effect size and number of subjects per meta-analysis; the reliability of RR is generally unaffected by changes in variance, but it does require more subjects than WMD to be powerful; NPRR is the most reliable method, but it is not very powerful; SVC behaves well when the effect size is moderate, but is less reliable with other effect sizes. Detailed tables of results are annexed. Conclusions: Before undertaking statistical aggregation in software engineering, it is worthwhile checking whether there is any appreciable difference in the reliability and power of the methods. If there is, software engineers should select the method that optimizes both parameters

Comparative analysis of meta-analysis methods: When to use which?

Background: Several meta-analysis methods can be used to quantitatively combine the results of a group of experiments, including the weighted mean difference, statistical vote counting, the parametric response ratio and the non-parametric response ratio. The software engineering community has focused on the weighted mean difference method. However, other meta-analysis methods have distinct strengths, such as being able to be used when variances are not reported. There are as yet no guidelines to indicate which method is best for use in each case Aim: Compile a set of rules that SE researchers can use to ascertain which aggregation method is best for use in the synthesis phase of a systematic review. Method: Monte Carlo simulation varying the number of experiments in the meta analyses, the number of subjects that they include, their variance and effect size. We empirically calculated the reliability and statistical power in each case Results: WMD is generally reliable if the variance is low, whereas its power depends on the effect size and number of subjects per meta-analysis; the reliability of RR is generally unaffected by changes in variance, but it does require more subjects than WMD to be powerful; NPRR is the most reliable method, but it is not very powerful; SVC behaves well when the effect size is moderate, but is less reliable with other effect sizes. Detailed tables of results are annexed. Conclusions: Before undertaking statistical aggregation in software engineering, it is worthwhile checking whether there is any appreciable difference in the reliability and power of the methods. If there is, software engineers should select the method that optimizes both parameters.Facultad de Informátic

Evolution of statistical analysis in empirical software engineering research: Current state and steps forward

Software engineering research is evolving and papers are increasingly based on empirical data from a multitude of sources, using statistical tests to determine if and to what degree empirical evidence supports their hypotheses. To investigate the practices and trends of statistical analysis in empirical software engineering (ESE), this paper presents a review of a large pool of papers from top-ranked software engineering journals. First, we manually reviewed 161 papers and in the second phase of our method, we conducted a more extensive semi-automatic classification of papers spanning the years 2001--2015 and 5,196 papers. Results from both review steps was used to: i) identify and analyze the predominant practices in ESE (e.g., using t-test or ANOVA), as well as relevant trends in usage of specific statistical methods (e.g., nonparametric tests and effect size measures) and, ii) develop a conceptual model for a statistical analysis workflow with suggestions on how to apply different statistical methods as well as guidelines to avoid pitfalls. Lastly, we confirm existing claims that current ESE practices lack a standard to report practical significance of results. We illustrate how practical significance can be discussed in terms of both the statistical analysis and in the practitioner's context.Comment: journal submission, 34 pages, 8 figure

A Unified Checklist for Observational and Experimental Research in Software Engineering (Version 1)

Current checklists for empirical software engineering cover either experimental research or case study research but ignore the many commonalities that exist across all kinds of empirical research. Identifying these commonalities, and explaining why they exist, would enhance our understanding of empirical research in general and of the differences between experimental and case study research in particular. In this report we design a unified checklist for empirical research, and identify commonalities and differences between experimental and case study research. We design the unified checklist as a specialization of the general engineering cycle, which itself is a special case of the rational choice cycle. We then compare the resulting empirical research cycle with two checklists for experimental research, and with one checklist for case study research. The resulting checklist identifies important questions to be answered in experimental and case study research design and reports. The checklist provides insights in two different types of empirical research design and their relationships. Its limitations are that it ignores other research methods such as meta-research or surveys. It has been tested so far only in our own research designs and in teaching empirical methods. Future work includes expanding the comparison with other methods and application in more cases, by others than ourselves

New ideas and emerging research: evaluating prediction system accuracy

BACKGROUND: Prediction e.g. of project cost is an important concern in software engineering. PROBLEM: Although many empirical validations of software engineering prediction systems have been published, no one approach dominates and sense-making of conflicting empirical results is proving challenging. METHOD: We propose a new approach to evaluating competing prediction systems based upon an unbiased statistic (Standardised Accuracy), analysis of results relative to the baseline technique of guessing and calculation of effect sizes. RESULTS: Two empirical studies are revisited and the published results are shown to be misleading when re-analysed using our new approach. CONCLUSION: Biased statistics such as MMRE are deprecated. By contrast our approach leads to valid results. Such steps will greatly assist in performing future meta-analyses