The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise
Abstract
A total of 295 junior, intermediate, and senior professional Java consultants (99 individuals and 98 pairs) from 29 international consultancy companies in Norway, Sweden, and the UK were hired for one day to participate in a controlled experiment on pair programming. The subjects used professional Java tools to perform several change tasks on two alternative Java systems with different degrees of complexity. The results of this experiment do not support the hypotheses that pair programming in general reduces the time required to solve the tasks correctly or increases the proportion of correct solutions. On the other hand, there is a significant 84 percent increase in effort to perform the tasks correctly. However, on the more complex system, the pair programmers had a 48 percent increase in the proportion of correct solutions but no significant differences in the time taken to solve the tasks correctly. For the simpler system, there was a 20 percent decrease in time taken but no significant differences in correctness. However, the moderating effect of system complexity depends on the programmer expertise of the subjects. The observed benefits of pair programming in terms of correctness on the complex system apply mainly to juniors, whereas the reductions in duration to perform the tasks correctly on the simple system apply mainly to intermediates and seniors. It is possible that the benefits of pair programming will exceed the results obtained in this experiment for larger, more complex tasks and if the pair programmers have a chance to work together over a longer period of time
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
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Cohen, J. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9780203771587 · Cited by 25,373
Developmental sequence in small groups.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0022100 · Cited by 5,778
Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 · Cited by 2,196
Are Reviews an Alternative to Pair Programming?
Müller, M. M. (2004) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1023/b:emse.0000039883.47173.39 · Cited by 61
Cited by
The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis
Hannay, J. E., Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., & Sjøberg, D. I. K. (2009) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001 · Cited by 268
Self-citation(2014) · doi:10.1145/2597073.2597082 · Cited by 252
The ABC of Software Engineering Research
Stol, K.-J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3241743 · Cited by 245
SEGRESS: Software Engineering Guidelines for REporting Secondary Studies
Kitchenham, B., Madeyski, L., & Budgen, D. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2022.3174092 · Cited by 219
When and what to automate in software testing? A multi-vocal literature review
Garousi, V., & Mäntylä, M. V. (2016) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2016.04.015 · Cited by 182
Metadata
- Authors
- Arisholm, E., Gallis, H., Dyba, T., & Sjoberg, D. I. K.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 65-86
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-3520
- OpenAlex
- W2147617769
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 63.89
- 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.