A survey on testing technique empirical studies: how limited is our knowledge

Engineering disciplines are characterised by the use of mature knowledge by means of which they can achieve predictable results. Unfortunately, the type of knowledge used in software engineering can be considered to be of a relatively low maturity, and developers are guided by reasoning based on intuition, fashion or market-speak rather than by facts or undisputed statements proper to an engineering discipline. This paper analyses the maturity level of the knowledge about testing techniques by examining existing empirical studies about these techniques. For this purpose, three categories of knowledge of increasing maturity have been presented and the results of these empirical studies have been placed in these three categories.

[1]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  Empirical Studies of a Safe Regression Test Selection Technique , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[2]  Glenford J. Myers,et al.  A controlled experiment in program testing and code walkthroughs/inspections , 1978, CACM.

[3]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of Weak Mutation , 1994, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[4]  Joseph Robert Horgan,et al.  A study of effective regression testing in practice , 1997, Proceedings The Eighth International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering.

[5]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  An empirical study of regression test selection techniques , 2001, ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol..

[6]  Phyllis G. Frankl,et al.  Further empirical studies of test effectiveness , 1998, SIGSOFT '98/FSE-6.

[7]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  An empirical study of regression test application frequency , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2000 the New Millennium.

[8]  Erik Kamsties,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of Three Defect-Detection Techniques , 1995, ESEC.

[9]  Thomas J. Ostrand,et al.  Experiments on the effectiveness of dataflow- and control-flow-based test adequacy criteria , 1994, Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[10]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  An experimental determination of sufficient mutant operators , 1996, TSEM.

[11]  Phyllis G. Frankl,et al.  Empirical evaluation of the textual differencing regression testing technique , 1998, Proceedings. International Conference on Software Maintenance (Cat. No. 98CB36272).

[12]  Rothermel Karen,et al.  A Comparative Study of Coarse-and Fine-Grained Safe Regression Test Selection , 1999 .

[13]  James M. Bieman,et al.  An empirical evaluation (and specification) of the all-du-paths testing criterion , 1992, Softw. Eng. J..

[14]  James Miller,et al.  Comparing and combining software defect detection techniques: a replicated empirical study , 1997, ESEC '97/FSE-5.

[15]  Phyllis G. Frankl,et al.  All-uses vs mutation testing: An experimental comparison of effectiveness , 1997, J. Syst. Softw..

[16]  Phyllis G. Frankl,et al.  An Experimental Comparison of the Effectiveness of Branch Testing and Data Flow Testing , 1993, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[17]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  Test case prioritization: an empirical study , 1999, Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance - 1999 (ICSM'99). 'Software Maintenance for Business Change' (Cat. No.99CB36360).

[18]  Gregg Rothermel,et al.  Prioritizing test cases for regression testing , 2000, ISSTA '00.

[19]  W. Eric Wong,et al.  Fault detection effectiveness of mutation and data flow testing , 1995, Software Quality Journal.

[20]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Comparing the Effectiveness of Software Testing Strategies , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[21]  Elaine J. Weyuker,et al.  The Cost of Data Flow Testing: An Empirical Study , 1990, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..