The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Use of Software Complexity Metrics in Software Maintenance
Abstract
This paper reports on a modest study which relates seven different software complexity metrics to the experience of maintenance activities performed on a medium size software system. Three different versions of the system that evolved over a period of three years were analyzed in this study. A major revision of the system, while still in its design phase, was also analyzed.
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
Cited by
Subjective evaluation of software evolvability using code smells: An empirical study
Mäntylä, M. V., & Lassenius, C. (2007) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-006-9002-8 · Cited by 171
Metadata
- Authors
- Kafura, D., & Reddy, G. R.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 1987-03
- Volume
- SE-13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 335-343
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2130060711
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.42
- 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: The Use of Software Complexity Metrics in Software Maintenance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.1987.233164
- The paper
- Kafura, D., & Reddy, G. R. (1987). The Use of Software Complexity Metrics in Software Maintenance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.1987.233164
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.
