The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effectiveness of Requirements Elicitation Techniques: Empirical Results Derived from a Systematic Review
Abstract
This paper reports a systematic review of empirical studies concerning the effectiveness of elicitation techniques, and the subsequent aggregation of empirical evidence gathered from those studies. The most significant results of the aggregation process are as follows: (I) interviews, preferentially structured, appear to be one of the most effective elicitation techniques; (2) many techniques often cited in the literature, like card sorting, ranking or thinking aloud, tend to be less effective than interviews; (3) analyst experience does not appear to be a relevant factor; and (4) the studies conducted have not found the use of intermediate representations during elicitation to have significant positive effects. It should be noted that, as a general rule, the studies from which these results were aggregated have not been replicated, and therefore the above claims cannot be said to be absolutely certain. However, they can be used by researchers as pieces of knowledge to be further investigated and by practitioners in development projects, always taking into account that they are preliminary findings
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research
Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001) · doi:10.4135/9781412985017 · Cited by 664
Cited by
Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering
Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2008) · Electronic Workshops in Computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/ease2008.8 · Cited by 3,239
Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A tertiary study
Kitchenham, B., Pretorius, R., Budgen, D., Pearl Brereton, O., Turner, M., Niazi, M., & Linkman, S. (2010) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006 · Cited by 1,230
Developing search strategies for detecting relevant experiments
Dieste, O., Grimán, A., & Juristo, N. (2009) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-008-9091-7 · Cited by 200
Self-citationSystematic literature reviews in software engineering
Wohlin, C., & Prikladnicki, R. (2013) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.02.002 · Cited by 120
How Reliable Are Systematic Reviews in Empirical Software Engineering?
MacDonell, S., Shepperd, M., Kitchenham, B., & Mendes, E. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2010.28 · Cited by 108
On using grey literature and google scholar in systematic literature reviews in software engineering
Yasin, A., Fatima, R., Wen, L., Afzal, W., Azhar, M., & Torkar, R. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2971712 · Cited by 85
Requirements Engineering: Best Practice
Fricker, S. A., Grau, R., & Zwingli, A. (2015) · Requirements Engineering for Digital Health · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09798-5_2 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Davis, A., Dieste, O., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., & Moreno, A. M.
- Venue
- 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2006-09
- Pages
- 179-188
- OpenAlex
- W2108410964
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.