Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-8308
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLochmann, Klausde
dc.contributor.authorRamadani, Jasminde
dc.contributor.authorWagner, Stefande
dc.date.accessioned2015-03-25de
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-31T11:45:52Z-
dc.date.available2015-03-25de
dc.date.available2016-03-31T11:45:52Z-
dc.date.issued2013de
dc.identifier.other428243347de
dc.identifier.urihttp://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-99199de
dc.identifier.urihttp://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/8325-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-8308-
dc.description.abstractThe concept of software quality is very complex and has many facets. Reflecting all these facets and at the same time measuring everything related to these facets results in comprehensive but large quality models and extensive measurements. In contrast, there are also many smaller, focused quality models claiming to evaluate quality with few measures. We investigate if and to what extent it is possible to build a focused quality model with similar evaluation results as a comprehensive quality model but with far less measures needed to be collected and, hence, reduced effort. We make quality evaluations with the comprehensive Quamoco base quality model and build focused quality models based on the same set of measures and data from over 2,000 open source systems. We analyse the ability of the focused model to predict the results of the Quamoco model by comparing them with a random predictor as a baseline. We calculate the standardised accuracy measure SA and effect sizes. We found that for the Quamoco model and its 378 automatically collected measures, we can build a focused model with only 10 measures but an accuracy of 61% and a medium to high effect size. We conclude that we can build focused quality models to get an impression of a system’s quality similar to comprehensive models. However, when including manually collected measures, the accuracy of the models stayed below 50%. Hence, manual measures seem to have a high impact and should therefore not be ignored in a focused model.en
dc.language.isoende
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessde
dc.subject.classificationSoftware , Qualität , Modellde
dc.subject.ddc004de
dc.subject.otherSoftwarequalität , Qualitätsmodell , Evaluierungde
dc.subject.otherSoftware Quality , Quality Model , Evaluationen
dc.titleAre comprehensive quality models necessary for evaluating software quality?en
dc.typeconferenceObjectde
dc.date.updated2015-04-14de
ubs.bemerkung.externThe presented work was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), grant "Quamoco, 01IS08023B".de
ubs.fakultaetFakultätsübergreifend / Sonstige Einrichtungde
ubs.fakultaetFakultät Informatik, Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnikde
ubs.institutSonstige Einrichtungde
ubs.institutInstitut für Softwaretechnologiede
ubs.opusid9919de
ubs.publikation.sourceProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE'13). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2499393.2499404de
ubs.publikation.typKonferenzbeitragde
Appears in Collections:15 Fakultätsübergreifend / Sonstige Einrichtung

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
light_weight_qm.pdf341,59 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in OPUS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.