How Software Testers Perceive Large Language Models: A Focus Group Study with Lexicometric Analysis

Context. Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in software-engineering toolchains, with potential to enhance quality-assurance tasks such as test-case generation, bug analysis, and traceability. Yet their industrial value remains unclear, partly because practicing testers’ perspectives are underexplored. Objective. We investigate how industry testers perceive the usefulness and limitations of LLMs across the Software Test Life Cycle (STLC), identifying (i) the most critical stages, (ii) operational bottlenecks, and (iii) perceived benefits, risks, and adoption conditions. Method. A focus group with five professional quality analysts (2–10 years’ experience) included hands-on interaction with an LLM-powered BDD notebook, followed by guided discussion and affinity-diagram voting. Forty-two statements were coded and prioritized. Results. Requirements Analysis and Test Planning were deemed most critical; 71% of votes linked rework to unclear or incomplete requirements. Benefits cited were automation of repetitive tasks, broader coverage, and faster learning; main concerns were prompt sensitivity, limited domain generalization, and data-privacy risks, with emphasis on human oversight and domain-adapted prompt libraries. Conclusion. While LLMs can improve efficiency and coverage, adoption depends on high-quality inputs, secure deployment, and early-phase integration. The findings offer empirically grounded guidance for aligning LLM solutions with the socio-technical realities of industrial testing teams.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-09-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5753/ise.2025.14878
Primary Topic
Software Engineering Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

How Software Testers Perceive Large Language Models: A Focus Group Study with Lexicometric Analysis

Ângelo Perkusich, Kyller Gorgônio, Izabella Silva, Danyllo Albuquerque et al.
Software Engineering Research
article

How Software Testers Perceive Large Language Models: A Focus Group Study with Lexicometric Analysis

Ângelo Perkusich, Kyller Gorgônio, Izabella Silva, Danyllo Albuquerque, Mirko Perkusich
article en

Abstract

Context. Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in software-engineering toolchains, with potential to enhance quality-assurance tasks such as test-case generation, bug analysis, and traceability. Yet their industrial value remains unclear, partly because practicing testers’ perspectives are underexplored. Objective. We investigate how industry testers perceive the usefulness and limitations of LLMs across the Software Test Life Cycle (STLC), identifying (i) the most critical stages, (ii) operational bottlenecks, and (iii) perceived benefits, risks, and adoption conditions. Method. A focus group with five professional quality analysts (2–10 years’ experience) included hands-on interaction with an LLM-powered BDD notebook, followed by guided discussion and affinity-diagram voting. Forty-two statements were coded and prioritized. Results. Requirements Analysis and Test Planning were deemed most critical; 71% of votes linked rework to unclear or incomplete requirements. Benefits cited were automation of repetitive tasks, broader coverage, and faster learning; main concerns were prompt sensitivity, limited domain generalization, and data-privacy risks, with emphasis on human oversight and domain-adapted prompt libraries. Conclusion. While LLMs can improve efficiency and coverage, adoption depends on high-quality inputs, secure deployment, and early-phase integration. The findings offer empirically grounded guidance for aligning LLM solutions with the socio-technical realities of industrial testing teams.

Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa e Inovação Industrial
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Software Engineering Research
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.