An empirical study and replication reveal that developers frequently misperceive the effectiveness of testing and code review techniques. These misjudgments—oftenAn empirical study and replication reveal that developers frequently misperceive the effectiveness of testing and code review techniques. These misjudgments—often

Why Developers Keep Picking the Wrong Testing Techniques

:::info Authors:

  1. Sira Vegas
  2. Patricia Riofr´ıo
  3. Esperanza Marcos
  4. Natalia Juristo

:::

Abstract

1 Introduction

2 Original Study: Research Questions and Methodology

3 Original Study: Validity Threats

4 Original Study: Results

5 Replicated Study: Research Questions and Methodology

6 Replicated Study: Validity Threats

7 Replicated Study: Results

8 Discussion

9 Related Work

10 Conclusions And References

Abstract

A recurring problem in software development is incorrect decision making on the techniques, methods and tools to be used. Mostly, these decisions are based on developers’ perceptions about them. A factor influencing people’s perceptions is past experience, but it is not the only one. In this research, we aim to discover how well the perceptions of the defect detection effectiveness of different techniques match their real effectiveness in the absence of prior experience.

\ To do this, we conduct an empirical study plus a replication. During the original study, we conduct a controlled experiment with students applying two testing techniques and a code review technique. At the end of the experiment, they take a survey to find out which technique they perceive to be most effective. The results show that participants’ perceptions are wrong and that this mismatch is costly in terms of quality.

\ In order to gain further insight into the results, we replicate the controlled experiment and extend the survey to include questions about participants’ opinions on the techniques and programs. The results of the replicated study confirm the findings of the original study and suggest that participants’ perceptions might be based not on their opinions about complexity or preferences for techniques but on how well they think that they have applied the techniques.

1. Introduction

An increasingly more popular practice nowadays is for software development companies to let developers choose their own technological environment. This means that different developers may use different productivity tools (programming language, IDE, etc.). However, software engineering (SE) is a humanintensive discipline where wrong decisions can potentially compromise the quality of the resulting software. In SE, decisions on which methods, techniques and tools to use in software development are typically based on developers’ perceptions and/or opinions rather than evidence, as suggested by Dyb˚a et al. [19] and Zelkowitz et al. [55].

\ However, empirical evidence might not be available, as certain methods, techniques or tools may not have been studied within a particular setting or even at all. Alternatively, developers may simply not be acquainted with such studies, according to Vegas & Basili [49]. On this ground, it is important to discover how well developers perceptions (beliefs) match reality and, if they do not, find out what is behind this mismatch, as noted by Devanbu et al.[14]. According to Psychology, experience plays a role in people’s perceptions. This has also been observed by Devanbu et al. [14] in SE.

\ However, this research sets out to discover how well matched perceptions are with reality in the absence of previous experience in the technology being used. This makes sense for several reasons: 1) experience is not the only factor affecting developers’ perceptions; 2) development teams are usually composed of a mix of people with and without experience; and 3) it is not clear what type of experience influences perceptions. For example, Dieste et al. [17] conclude that academic rather than professional experience could be affecting the external quality of the code generated by developers when applying Test-Driven Development.

\ We aim to study whether perceptions about the effectiveness of three defect detection techniques match reality, and if not, what is behind these perceptions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to empirically assess this issue. To this end, we conducted an empirical study plus a replication with students. During the original study we measured (as part of a controlled experiment) the effectiveness of two testing techniques and one code review technique when applied by the participants. We then checked the perceived most effective technique (gathered by means of a survey) against the real one.

\ Additionally, we analysed the cost of the mismatch between perceptions and reality in terms of loss of effectiveness. Major findings include:

– Different people perceive different techniques to be more effective. No one technique is perceived as being more effective than the others. – The perceptions of 50% of participants (11 out of 23) are wrong.

– Wrong perception of techniques can reduce effectiveness 31pp (percentage points) on average.

\ These findings led us to extend the goal of the study in a replication to investigate what could be behind participants’ perceptions. To do this, we examined their opinions on the techniques they applied and the programs they tested in a replication of the controlled experiment. Major findings include:

– The results of the replication confirm the findings of the original study.

– Participants think that technique effectiveness depends exclusively on their performance and not on possible weaknesses of the technique itself. – The opinions about technique complexity and preferences for techniques do not seem to play a role in perceived effectiveness. These results are useful for developers and researchers. They suggest:

– Developers should become aware of the limitations of their judgement.

– Tools should be designed that provide feedback to developers on how effective techniques are.

– The best combination of techniques to apply should be determined that is at the same time easily applicable and effective. – Instruments should be developed to make empirical results available to developers.

\ The material associated to the studies presented here can be found at https://github.com/GRISE-UPM/Misperceptions. The article is organised as follows. Section 2 describes the original study. Section 3 presents its validity threats. Section 4 discusses the results. Section 5 describes the replicated study based on the modifications made to the original study. Section 6 presents its validity threats. Section 7 reports the results of this replicated study. Section 8 discusses our findings and their implications. Section 9 shows related work. Finally, Section 10 outlines the conclusions of this work.

\ \

:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

:::

\

Piyasa Fırsatı
WHY Logosu
WHY Fiyatı(WHY)
$0.00000001529
$0.00000001529$0.00000001529
0.00%
USD
WHY (WHY) Canlı Fiyat Grafiği
Sorumluluk Reddi: Bu sitede yeniden yayınlanan makaleler, halka açık platformlardan alınmıştır ve yalnızca bilgilendirme amaçlıdır. MEXC'nin görüşlerini yansıtmayabilir. Tüm hakları telif sahiplerine aittir. Herhangi bir içeriğin üçüncü taraf haklarını ihlal ettiğini düşünüyorsanız, kaldırılması için lütfen service@support.mexc.com ile iletişime geçin. MEXC, içeriğin doğruluğu, eksiksizliği veya güncelliği konusunda hiçbir garanti vermez ve sağlanan bilgilere dayalı olarak alınan herhangi bir eylemden sorumlu değildir. İçerik, finansal, yasal veya diğer profesyonel tavsiye niteliğinde değildir ve MEXC tarafından bir tavsiye veya onay olarak değerlendirilmemelidir.

Ayrıca Şunları da Beğenebilirsiniz

Exodus Partners with MoonPay to Launch Fully Reserved USD-Backed Stablecoin on M0 Infrastructure

Exodus Partners with MoonPay to Launch Fully Reserved USD-Backed Stablecoin on M0 Infrastructure

Exodus, known for its user-friendly self-custody wallet supporting multiple blockchains, will integrate the new stablecoin into its product suite, providing its user base with seamless access to the digital dollar. MoonPay, which has established itself as a leading fiat on-ramp and off-ramp service, brings its payment rails and regulatory relationships to the partnership. M0, a newer entrant focused specifically on stablecoin infrastructure, provides the underlying technology stack.
Paylaş
MEXC NEWS2025/12/17 12:35
Bitcoin-to-Gold Ratio Plunges 50% in 2025 as Precious Metal Outshines Digital Asset

Bitcoin-to-Gold Ratio Plunges 50% in 2025 as Precious Metal Outshines Digital Asset

The Bitcoin-to-gold ratio has collapsed by 50% in 2025, marking a dramatic reversal in the relative performance of the two assets often positioned as alternatives to traditional fiat currencies. Gold has surged to record highs on the back of unprecedented central bank accumulation and robust ETF inflows, while Bitcoin has struggled amid persistent ETF outflows and significant selling pressure from long-term holders. This divergence challenges the narrative that has gained traction over the past decade positioning Bitcoin as "digital gold"—a superior store of value offering gold's monetary properties with added portability, divisibility, and verifiability. In 2025, investors have voted decisively for the original over its digital challenger, at least in relative terms.
Paylaş
MEXC NEWS2025/12/17 12:38
Holiday Season Sees Surge in Crypto Scams as Fraudsters Target Distracted Users

Holiday Season Sees Surge in Crypto Scams as Fraudsters Target Distracted Users

The holiday season has brought an unwelcome gift to the cryptocurrency community: a marked escalation in fraudulent activity across multiple attack vectors. Scammers are ramping up phishing campaigns, fake token presales, romance schemes, impersonation tactics, and malicious applications, all designed to separate distracted users from their digital assets during a period of reduced vigilance. The timing is deliberate. Holiday distractions, year-end financial activity, and the general atmosphere of goodwill create ideal conditions for social engineering attacks. Users juggling shopping, travel, and family obligations may exercise less caution when reviewing messages or evaluating opportunities. Scammers understand this seasonal psychology and calibrate their campaigns accordingly.
Paylaş
MEXC NEWS2025/12/17 12:41