How to rate programming skills in programming experiments?: a preliminary, exploratory, study based on university marks, pretests, and self-estimation

Rating of subjects is an important issue for empirical studies. First, it is desirable for studies that rely on comparisons between different groups to make sure that those groups are balanced, i.e. that subjects in different groups are comparable. Second, in order to understand to what extent the results of a study are generalizable it is necessary to understand whether the used subjects can be considered as representative. Third, for a deeper understanding of an experiment's results it is desirable to understand what different kinds of subjects achieved what results. This paper addresses this topic by a preliminary, exploratory study that analyzes three different possible criteria: university marks, self-estimation, and pretests. It turns out that neither university marks nor pretests yielded better results than self-estimation.

[1]  D. D. Wheeler,et al.  The Myers-Briggs Personality Type and Its Relationship to Computer Programming , 1994 .

[2]  Walter F. Tichy,et al.  Should Computer Scientists Experiment More? , 1998, Computer.

[3]  Roger S. Pressman,et al.  Software engineering (3rd ed.): a practitioner's approach , 1992 .

[4]  Janice Singer,et al.  Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering , 2007 .

[5]  Stefan Hanenberg,et al.  Static vs. dynamic type systems: an empirical study about the relationship between type casts and development time , 2011, DLS '11.

[6]  Walter F. Tichy,et al.  A Controlled Experiment to Assess the Benefits of Procedure Argument Type Checking , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

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

[8]  Shari Lawrence Pfleeger,et al.  Experimental design and analysis in software engineering, part 4: choosing an experimental design , 1995, SOEN.

[9]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Using Students as Subjects—A Comparative Study of Students and Professionals in Lead-Time Impact Assessment , 2000, Empirical Software Engineering.

[10]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Using students as subjects - an empirical evaluation , 2008, ESEM '08.

[11]  David Greathead,et al.  Does personality matter?: an analysis of code-review ability , 2007, CACM.

[12]  Gregor Kiczales,et al.  Aspect-oriented programming , 2001, ESEC/FSE-9.

[13]  Lutz Prechelt Kontrollierte Experimente in der Softwaretechnik , 2001 .

[14]  Roger S. Pressman,et al.  Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach , 1982 .

[15]  Natalia Juristo Juzgado,et al.  Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation , 2010, Springer US.

[16]  David J. Groggel,et al.  Practical Nonparametric Statistics , 2000, Technometrics.

[17]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers , 2004, SIGCSE '04.

[18]  Thomas Ledoux,et al.  Aspect-Oriented Software Development , 2003 .

[19]  Sebastian Kleinschmager,et al.  Does aspect-oriented programming increase the development speed for crosscutting code? An empirical study , 2009, 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement.

[20]  E Standard,et al.  Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler , 2012 .

[21]  D A Boehm-Davis,et al.  Approaches to Structuring the Software Development Process. , 1984 .