Does Treatment Adherence Impact Experiment Results in TDD?

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Context:</b> In software engineering (SE) experiments, the way in which a treatment is applied could affect results. Different interpretations of how to apply the treatment and decisions on treatment adherence could lead to different results when data are analysed. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Objective:</b> This paper aims to study whether treatment adherence has an impact on the results of an SE experiment. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Method:</b> The experiment used as test case for our research uses Test-Driven Development (TDD) and Incremental Test-Last Development, (ITLD) as treatments. We reported elsewhere the design and results of such an experiment where 24 participants were recruited from industry. Here, we compare experiment results depending on the use of data from adherent participants or data from all the participants irrespective of their adherence to treatments. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results:</b> Only 40% of the participants adhere to both TDD protocol and to the ITLD protocol; 27% never followed TDD; 20% used TDD even in the control group; 13% are defiers (used TDD in ITLD session but not in TDD session). Considering that both TDD and ITLD are less complex than other SE methods, we can hypothesize that more complex SE techniques could get even lower adherence to the treatment. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Conclusion:</b> Both TDD and ITLD are applied differently across participants. Training participants could not be enough to ensure a medium to large adherence of experiment participants. Adherence to treatments impacts results and should not be taken for granted in SE experiments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Published
2024-11-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2024.3497332
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.87

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does Treatment Adherence Impact Experiment Results in TDD?

José Ignacio Panach, Itir Karac, Burak Turhan, Natália Juristo
1 citations
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
0.87
article

Does Treatment Adherence Impact Experiment Results in TDD?

José Ignacio Panach, Itir Karac, Burak Turhan, Natália Juristo
article en
1 citations

Abstract

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Context:</b> In software engineering (SE) experiments, the way in which a treatment is applied could affect results. Different interpretations of how to apply the treatment and decisions on treatment adherence could lead to different results when data are analysed. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Objective:</b> This paper aims to study whether treatment adherence has an impact on the results of an SE experiment. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Method:</b> The experiment used as test case for our research uses Test-Driven Development (TDD) and Incremental Test-Last Development, (ITLD) as treatments. We reported elsewhere the design and results of such an experiment where 24 participants were recruited from industry. Here, we compare experiment results depending on the use of data from adherent participants or data from all the participants irrespective of their adherence to treatments. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results:</b> Only 40% of the participants adhere to both TDD protocol and to the ITLD protocol; 27% never followed TDD; 20% used TDD even in the control group; 13% are defiers (used TDD in ITLD session but not in TDD session). Considering that both TDD and ITLD are less complex than other SE methods, we can hypothesize that more complex SE techniques could get even lower adherence to the treatment. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Conclusion:</b> Both TDD and ITLD are applied differently across participants. Training participants could not be enough to ensure a medium to large adherence of experiment participants. Adherence to treatments impacts results and should not be taken for granted in SE experiments.

IEEE Transactions on Software EngineeringVol. 51(1)
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES), University of Oulu (FI)
Academy of Finland, Generalitat Valenciana, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, European Regional Development Fund, Agencia Estatal de Investigación, Conselleria de Innovación, Universidades, Ciencia y Sociedad Digital, Generalitat Valenciana
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
0.87
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.