The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empirical Validation of Three Software Metrics Suites to Predict Fault-Proneness of Object-Oriented Classes Developed Using Highly Iterative or Agile Software Development Processes
Abstract
Empirical validation of software metrics suites to predict fault proneness in object-oriented (OO) components is essential to ensure their practical use in industrial settings. In this paper, we empirically validate three OO metrics suites for their ability to predict software quality in terms of fault-proneness: the Chidamber and Kemerer (CK) metrics, Abreu's Metrics for Object-Oriented Design (MOOD), and Bansiya and Davis' Quality Metrics for Object-Oriented Design (QMOOD). Some CK class metrics have previously been shown to be good predictors of initial OO software quality. However, the other two suites have not been heavily validated except by their original proposers. Here, we explore the ability of these three metrics suites to predict fault-prone classes using defect data for six versions of Rhino, an open-source implementation of JavaScript written in Java. We conclude that the CK and QMOOD suites contain similar components and produce statistical models that are effective in detecting error-prone classes. We also conclude that the class components in the MOOD metrics suite are not good class fault-proneness predictors. Analyzing multivariate binary logistic regression models across six Rhino versions indicates these models may be useful in assessing quality in OO classes produced using modern highly iterative or agile software development processes.
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
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
A metrics suite for object oriented design
Chidamber, S. R., & Kemerer, C. F. (1994) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.295895 · Cited by 5,669
A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators
Basili, V. R., Briand, L. C., & Melo, W. L. (1996) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.544352 · Cited by 1,726
A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment
Bansiya, J., & Davis, C. G. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.979986 · Cited by 1,020
Empirical validation of object-oriented metrics on open source software for fault prediction
Gyimothy, T., Ferenc, R., & Siket, I. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2005.112 · Cited by 904
A unified framework for coupling measurement in object-oriented systems
Briand, L. C., Daly, J. W., & Wust, J. K. (1999) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.748920 · Cited by 814
Subramanyam, R., & Krishnan, M. S. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2003.1191795 · Cited by 672
A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment
(2015) · Cited by 655
The confounding effect of class size on the validity of object-oriented metrics
El Emam, K., Benlarbi, S., Goel, N., & Rai, S. N. (2001) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.935855 · Cited by 422
An evaluation of the MOOD set of object-oriented software metrics
Harrison, R., Counsell, S. J., & Nithi, R. V. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/32.689404 · Cited by 359
Cited by
A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering
Hall, T., Beecham, S., Bowes, D., Gray, D., & Counsell, S. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2011.103 · Cited by 1,154
Software fault prediction metrics: A systematic literature review
Radjenović, D., Heričko, M., Torkar, R., & Živkovič, A. (2013) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.02.009 · Cited by 538
Using the Conceptual Cohesion of Classes for Fault Prediction in Object-Oriented Systems
Marcus, A., Poshyvanyk, D., & Ferenc, R. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2007.70768 · Cited by 294
Software defect prediction using cost-sensitive neural network
Arar, Ö. F., & Ayan, K. (2015) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.04.045 · Cited by 255
Jabangwe, R., Börstler, J., Šmite, D., & Wohlin, C. (2015) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-013-9291-7 · Cited by 97
Metadata
- Authors
- Olague, H. M., Etzkorn, L. H., Gholston, S., & Quattlebaum, S.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 402-419
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-3520
- OpenAlex
- W2137367944
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 53.24
- 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: Empirical Validation of Three Software Metrics Suites to Predict Fault-Proneness of Object-Oriented Classes Developed Using Highly Iterative or Agile Software Development Processes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2007.1015
- The paper
- Olague, H. M., Etzkorn, L. H., Gholston, S., & Quattlebaum, S. (2007). Empirical Validation of Three Software Metrics Suites to Predict Fault-Proneness of Object-Oriented Classes Developed Using Highly Iterative or Agile Software Development Processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2007.1015
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.
