Level of detail in UML models and its impact on model comprehension: A controlled experiment

Previous studies have shown that the style and rigor used in UML models vary widely across software projects [1-3]. However, notwithstanding the varying use of styles and rigor, little research has been conducted to investigate the drivers and effects of using different styles and rigor in modeling on software development. In this paper, we evaluate Level of Detail (LoD) in UML models as a form of style and rigor in UML modeling. Using a UML model of a library system, we experimentally investigate the impact of LoD on model comprehension. More specifically, we explore whether LoD in UML models affects the correctness and efficiency in comprehending UML models. Using two independent groups of graduate students majoring in computer science, we performed a controlled experiment. The results of the experiment confirm the significant effect of LoD in UML models on model comprehension. Nevertheless, replication of this study is necessary, especially in contexts that involve professional software engineers, to improve the generalizability of the results.

[1]  Michel R. V. Chaudron,et al.  A survey into the rigor of UML use and its perceived impact on quality and productivity , 2008, ESEM '08.

[2]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Quality and comprehension of UML interaction diagrams-an experimental comparison , 2005, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[3]  Massimiliano Di Penta,et al.  An experimental investigation of formality in UML-based development , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[4]  Miroslaw Staron,et al.  Empirical assessment of using stereotypes to improve comprehension of UML models: A set of experiments , 2006, J. Syst. Softw..

[5]  A. N. Oppenheim.  Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement , 1966 .

[6]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states—A family of empirical studies , 2009, Empirical Software Engineering.

[7]  David J. Krus,et al.  Lost: McCall's T Scores: Why? , 1977 .

[8]  Kozo Sugiyama,et al.  Proceedings of the 2006 Asia-Pacific Symposium on Information Visualisation - Volume 60 , 2006 .

[9]  David A. Carrington,et al.  UML Class Diagram Syntax: An Empirical Study of Comprehension , 2001, InVis.au.

[10]  Lionel C. Briand,et al.  A UML-Based Approach to System Testing , 2001, Software and Systems Modeling.

[11]  José Javier Dolado,et al.  Evaluation of the comprehension of the dynamic modeling in UML , 2004, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[12]  Danilo Caivano,et al.  Assessing the Influence of Stereotypes on the Comprehension of UML Sequence Diagrams: A Controlled Experiment , 2008, MoDELS.

[13]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Building measure-based prediction models for UML class diagram maintainability , 2007, Empirical Software Engineering.

[14]  Marco Torchiano,et al.  The Role of Experience and Ability in Comprehension Tasks Supported by UML Stereotypes , 2007, 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07).

[15]  Michel R. V. Chaudron,et al.  Empirical Analysis of the Relation between Level of Detail in UML Models and Defect Density , 2008, MoDELS.

[16]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction , 2000 .

[17]  Michel R. V. Chaudron,et al.  In practice: UML software architecture and design description , 2006, IEEE Software.

[18]  Marco Torchiano.  Empirical assessment of UML static object diagrams , 2004, Proceedings. 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension, 2004..

[19]  Jeffrey Parsons,et al.  How UML is used , 2006, CACM.

[20]  Siw Elisabeth Hove,et al.  The impact of UML documentation on software maintenance: an experimental evaluation , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[21]  Ariadi Nugroho,et al.  Managing the Quality of UML Models in Practice , 2009 .