The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: a behaviorally motivated program of research

Defect Types and Software Inspection Techniques: A Systematic Mapping Study

“…Software inspection is a specific type of software review (Ciolkowski et al, 2003) applied to artifacts by means of a systematic and well-planned defect identification process (Fagan, 1986;Kalinowski and Travassos, 2004;Sauer et al, 2000). According to CeBASE (http://www.cebase.org/defectreduction.html), over 60% of defects can be identified at early stages of the software life-cycle (Boehm and Basili, 2001;Gilb and Graham, 1993).…”

Assessing the impact of active guidance for defect detection: a replicated experiment

“…The tool provides support for both checklists and scenarios, which can be individually assigned to inspectors. Furthermore, the tool adopts a reengineered inspection process [25] that replaces the inspection meeting with two new sequential phases: Collection and Discrimination. They are the result of separating the activities of defect collection (i.e., putting together defects reported by individual reviewers) from defect discrimination (i.e., removing false positives), having removed the goal for team activities of finding further defects.…”

An empirical study on groupware support for software inspection meetings

“…In particular we were interested to investigate whether tool support can increase the efficiency of team meetings so that they would be easier to justify from an economic point of view. Please note that the current implementation of GRIP focuses on pure defect discrimination as proposed in [24]. We did not explicitly support other potential meeting goals like synergy and soft benefits.…”

“…Land et al [20] as well as Sauer et al [24] emphasize the importance of inspection meetings for defect collection and defect discrimination (i.e., identification of false positives). They report that meetings have a clear advantage over individual defect detection in discriminating between true defects and false positives.…”

“…As pointed out in the literature [24] students may not be representative of real developers. However, Höst et al [16] observe no significant differences between students and professionals for small tasks of judgment.…”