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.
|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||++|
(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 Type:
- Empirical Study
- Study Format:
- Controlled Experiment
- Two 8-person groups at each of 3 companies
- John Deere; Rolemodel Software; Ericsson
- Boby; G. & Williams; L. (2004). A structured experiment of test-driven development. In Information and software technology; 46; 337-342.
- Title of Paper:
- Conference Name: