Iflaah Salman
ABSTRACT
Humans are an integral entity for performing software quality and testing activities. The quality is compromised when human-thought process deviates from the laws of rational thinking, referred to as cognitive biases. The work carried out so far from this perspective in software quality and testing is very scarce and is limited to one cognitive bias only. This work aims to explore the phenomenon of cognitive biases in software quality and testing in more detail. Furthermore, investigating the factors that exist in an organisational context and that trigger the biases, which in turn deteriorate the quality of software, is also the focus of this work. Acquiring the knowledge of cognitive biases and the triggering factors will help in circumventing them, thus improving software quality.
- Arnott, D. 1998. A taxonomy of decision biases. School of Information Management & Systems. (1998), 1--48.Google Scholar
- Ask, K. and Granhag, P. A. 2007. Motivational bias in criminal investigators' judgments of witness reliability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 37, 3 (2007), 561--591.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Calikli, G. and Bener, A. 2010. Empirical analyses of the factors affecting confirmation bias and the effects of confirmation bias on software developer/tester performance. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering - PROMISE '10. Icse (2010), 1. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Calikli, G. and Bener, A. 2014. Empirical analysis of factors affecting confirmation bias levels of software engineers. Software Quality Journal. (2014). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Calikli, G., Bener, A. and Arslan, B. 2010. An analysis of the effects of company culture, education and experience on confirmation bias levels of software developers and testers. 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering. 2, (2010), 187--190. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Calikli, G., Bener, A., Aytac, T. and Bozcan, O. 2013. Towards a metric suite proposal to quantify confirmation biases of developers. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. (2013), 363--372.Google Scholar
- Calikli, G., Bener, A., Caglayan, B. and Tosun, A. 2012. Modeling Human Aspects to Enhance Software Quality Management. International conference on Information Systems (2012).Google Scholar
- Calıklı, G. and Bener, A. B. 2013. Influence of confirmation biases of developers on software quality: an empirical study. Software Quality Journal. 21, 2 (2013), 377--416. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fleischmann, M., Amirpur, M. and Benlian, A. Cognitive Biases in Information Systems Research: a Scientometric Analysis. Ecis2014.Eu. 1989, 1--21.Google Scholar
- Hernandez, I. and Preston, J. L. 2013. Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 49, 1 (2013), 178--182.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. 2007. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Engineering. 2, (2007), 1051.Google Scholar
- Klayman, J. and Ha, Y.-W. 1989. Hypothesis Testing in Rule Discovery: Strategy, Structure, and Content. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 15, 4 (1989), 596--604.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lenberg, P., Feldt, R. and Wallgren, L. G. 2015. Behavioral software engineering: A definition and systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software. 107, (2015), 15--37. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leventhal L. M., E., T. B. and S., R. D. 1994. Analyses of factors related to positive test bias in Software Testing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 41, (1994), 717--749. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leventhal, L. M., Teasley, B., Rohlman, D. S. and Instone, K. 1993. Positive test bias in software testing among professionals: A review. Human-Computer Interaction. (1993), 210--218. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mair, C. and Shepperd, M. 2011. Human judgement and software metrics. Proceeding of the 2nd international workshop on Emerging trends in software metrics - WETSoM '11. November 2015 (2011), 81. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mäntylä, M. V., Petersen, K., Lehtinen, T. O. a. and Lassenius, C. 2014. Time pressure: a controlled experiment of test case development and requirements review. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE 2014. (2014), 83--94. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parsons, J. and Saunders, C. 2004. Cognitive Heuristics in Software Engineering: Applying and Extending Anchoring and Adjustment to Artifact Reuse. 30, 12 (2004), 873--888. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stacy, W. and MacMillan, J. 1995. Cognitive Bias in Software Engineering. Commincations of the ACM. 38, 6 (1995), 57--63. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tang, A. 2011. Software Designers, Are You Biased? Program. (2011), 1--8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Teasley, B. E., Leventhal, L. M., Mynatt, C. R. and Rohlman, D. S. 1994. Why Software Testing is Sometimes Ineffective: Two Applied Studies of Positive Test Strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology. 79, 1 (1994), 142--155.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1973. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. (1973).Google Scholar
- Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B. and Wesslén, A. 2000. Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Cognitive biases in software quality and testing
Recommendations
Integrating software quality models into risk-based testing
Risk-based testing is a frequently used testing approach which utilizes identified risks of a software system to provide decision support in all phases of the testing process. Risk assessment, which is a core activity of every risk-based testing process,...
Factors affecting effective software quality management revisited
Developing a good software system is a very complex task. In order to produce a good software product, several measures for software quality attributes need to be taken into account. System complexity measurement plays a vital role in controlling and ...
Automated Feedback for Quality Assurance in Software Engineering Education
ASWEC '10: Proceedings of the 2010 21st Australian Software Engineering ConferenceThis paper investigates the use of automated testing tools for improving the quality of programs produced by software engineering students. Our approach to software quality assurance utilizes open source, professional software engineering tools to ...
Comments