How Tertiary Studies perform Quality Assessment of Secondary Studies in Software Engineering

Context: Tertiary studies are becoming increasingly popular in software engineering as an instrument to synthesise evidence on a research topic in a systematic way. In order to understand and contextualize their findings, it is important to assess the quality of the selected secondary studies. Objective: This paper aims to provide a state of the art on the assessment of secondary studies’ quality as conducted in tertiary studies in the area of software engineering, reporting the frameworks used as instruments, the facets examined in these frameworks, and the purposes of the quality assessment. Method: We designed this study as a systematic mapping responding to four research questions derived from the objective above. We applied a rigorous search protocol over the Scopus digital library, resulting in 47 papers after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The extracted data was synthesised using content analysis. Results: A majority of tertiary studies perform quality assessment. It is not often used for excluding studies, but to support some kind of investigation. The DARE quality assessment framework is the most frequently used, with customizations in some cases to cover missing facets. We outline the first steps towards building a new framework to address the shortcomings identified. Conclusion: This paper is a step forward establishing a foundation for researchers in two different ways. As authors of tertiary studies, understanding the different possibilities in which they can perform quality assessment of secondary studies. As readers, having an instrument to understand the methodological rigor upon which tertiary studies may claim their findings.

[1]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[2]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Evidence-based software engineering , 2004, Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[3]  Daniela Cruzes,et al.  Research synthesis in software engineering: A tertiary study , 2011, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[4]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Risks and risk mitigation in global software development: A tertiary study , 2014, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[5]  P. Tugwell,et al.  AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[6]  V. Basili Software modeling and measurement: the Goal/Question/Metric paradigm , 1992 .

[7]  Nauman Bin Ali,et al.  A critical appraisal tool for systematic literature reviews in software engineering , 2019, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[8]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A tertiary study , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[9]  Haifeng Shen,et al.  Quality Assessment in Systematic Literature Reviews: A Software Engineering Perspective , 2021, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[10]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Reporting systematic reviews: Some lessons from a tertiary study , 2017, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[11]  Apostolos Ampatzoglou,et al.  Identifying, categorizing and mitigating threats to validity in software engineering secondary studies , 2019, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[12]  Jacob Krüger,et al.  Search. Review. Repeat? An empirical study of threats to replicating SLR searches , 2019, Empirical Software Engineering.

[13]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[14]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..