Study Overview

This is the study overview page. Here you will find which goal and requisite contributions were reported by this study. If you are an author of this study, you can log in using your author username and password for this study and add or edit goal/requisite contributions.

Method fragments in this study

Here is a list of method fragment related to this study. Click on one to see its goal and requisite contributions as reported by this study.

Acceptance Testing

Goal contributions

Major Goal Minor Goal Contribution Value Situation
Improved Effectiveness (performance) Faster coding - Programmers took 16% more time.
Improved Effectiveness (performance) Avoid injecting defects during maintenance ++ Continual regression tests find "new" errors that passed previous tests.
Improved Product/Code Quality Reduced product defects ++

Requisite contributions

(S - Satisfied, PS - Partially Satisfied, U - Undefined, D - Denied, PD - Partly Denied)

Major Requisite Minor Requisite Requisite Satisfaction Value Situation
Defect be Resolved Quickly Designer's understanding of code be increased S Designer must thoroughly understand the feature to be implemented in order to write a test for it.

Study information

ID:
64

Name:
Boby2004

URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2003.09.011

Study Type:
Empirical Study

Study Format:
Controlled Experiment

Description:
Two 8-person groups at each of 3 companies

Organization:
John Deere; Rolemodel Software; Ericsson

Year:
2004

Reference:
Boby; G. & Williams; L. (2004). A structured experiment of test-driven development. In Information and software technology; 46; 337-342.

Title of Paper:
NA

Conference Name:
NA

Abstract:
NA