Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,149

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data

Basili, Victor R., Weiss, David M.·1984·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Abstract

An effective data collection method for evaluating software development methodologies and for studying the software development process is described. The method uses goal-directed data collection to evaluate methodologies with respect to the claims made for them. Such claims are used as a basis for defining the goals of the data collection, establishing a list of questions of interest to be answered by data analysis, defining a set of data categorization schemes, and designing a data collection form. The data to be collected are based on the changes made to the software during development, and are obtained when the changes are made. To ensure accuracy of the data, validation is performed concurrently with software development and data collection. Validation is based on interviews with those people supplying the data. Results from using the methodology show that data validation is a necessary part of change data collection. Without it, as much as 50 percent of the data may be erroneous. Feasibility of the data collection methodology was demonstrated by applying it to five different projects in two different environments. The application showed that the methodology was both feasible and useful.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tse.1984.5010301

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 10.1145/800027.808455 · DOI
  2. weiss, 1981, Evaluating software development by analysis of change data
  3. basili, 1981, evaluation of a software requirements document by analysis of change data, Proc Int l Conf Software Engineering, 314
  4. jensen, 1974, Pascal User Manual and Report, 10.1007/978-3-662-21554-8 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/BF00289504 · DOI
  6. boehm, 1980, An experiment in small-scale application software engineering
  7. basili, 1977, The Software Engineering Laboratory
  8. basili, 0, evaluating software development by analysis of changes: some data from the software engineering laboratory, IEEE Trans Software Eng
  9. chmura, 1982, evaluation of thea-7e software requirements document by analysis of changes: three years of data, NATO AGARD Avionics Symp
  10. 10.1145/359605.359618 · DOI · Paper page
  11. bailey, 1981, a meta-model for software development resource expenditures, Proc Int l Conf Software Engineering, 107
  12. 10.1109/TSE.1975.6312816 · DOI · Paper page
  13. mills, 1979, Structured Programming Theory and Practice
  14. 10.1145/1499949.1499995 · DOI
  15. elovitz, 1979, an experiment in software engineering: the architecture research facility as a case study, Proc Int Conf Software Engineering, 145
  16. 10.1016/0164-1212(79)90005-0 · DOI
  17. dijkstra, 1976, A Discipline of Programming
  18. floyd, 1967, assigning meanings to programs, Proc XIX Symp Appl Math Amer Math Soc, 19, 10.1090/psapm/019/0235771 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1145/363235.363259 · DOI
  20. 10.1147/sj.111.0056 · DOI · Paper page
  21. gannon, 1975, Language design to enhance programming reliability
  22. 10.1109/TSE.1977.229903 · DOI
  23. 10.1145/800027.808473 · DOI
  24. 10.1109/T-C.1974.224002 · DOI
  25. 10.1109/TSE.1979.234198 · DOI
  26. 10.1109/TSE.1975.6312838 · DOI
  27. 10.1145/800022.808306 · DOI
  28. 10.1145/355602.361309 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1109/TSE.1980.230208 · DOI
  30. boehm, 1973, software and its impact: a quantitative assessment, Datamation, 19, 48
  31. guttag, 1975, The Specification and Application to Programming of Abstract Data Types
  32. boehm, 1972, Information Processing/Data Automation Implications of Air Force Command and Control Requirements in the 1980's (CCIP-85)
  33. dijkstra, 1972, Structured Programming
  34. mills, 1971, chief programmer teams: principles and procedures, IBM Fed Syst Div
  35. 10.1145/356635.356640 · DOI · Paper page
  36. brown, 1954, The Social Psychology of Industry
  37. 10.1145/362575.362577 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1145/361598.361623 · DOI · Paper page
  39. mills, 1972, mathematical foundations for structured programming, IBM Fed Syst Div
  40. 10.1109/TSE.1978.231514 · DOI
  41. 10.1002/spe.4380020303 · DOI

Cited by

See all 1,149

Metadata

Authors
Basili, V. R., & Weiss, D. M.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Published
1984-11
Volume
SE-10
Issue
6
Pages
728-738
ISSN
  • 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-3520
  • 2326-3881
OpenAlex
W2049624350
Cited by
1,149
References
1
FWCI
39.05
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.1984.5010301
The paper
Basili, V. R., & Weiss, D. M. (1984). A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.1984.5010301

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.