Cited by 9Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering ResearchSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Performance Outcomes of Test-Driven Development: An Experimental Investigation

Open access
Texas A&M University Texarkana, USA, Bhadauria, Vikram, Mahapatra, RadhaKanta, University of Texas Arlington, USA, Nerur, Sridhar, University of Texas Arlington, USA·2020·Journal of the Association for Information Systems

Abstract

Despite the growing popularity of test-driven development (TDD), there is no empirical confirmation of the benefits that this contemporary practice confers on its users. Prior research findings on its efficacy have largely been inconclusive. We conducted a laboratory experiment to assess the impact of TDD on software quality and task satisfaction. Additionally, we investigated the productivity aspect of TDD as compared to the traditional test-last method of software development. Results indicate that software quality and task satisfaction are significantly improved when TDD is used. Despite the additional requirements of testing, TDD is not more resource intensive than the test-last method. We also examined TDD’s impact on learning post hoc and discuss the implications of our findings and directions for future research.

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 · 10.17705/1jais.00628

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The studies emphasize positive effects on developers, increased productivity, and improved software quality.

    “The studies emphasize positive effects on developers, increased productivity, and improved software quality [25].”

    From Test Driven Development and Its Impact on Program Design and Software Quality: A Systematic Literature Review (2023) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Conclusion and §9 report higher software quality and greater developer task satisfaction with TDD. But §7.1 says TDD produced higher quality without a loss of productivity, not increased productivity; §2.2 also describes prior productivity findings as mixed. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Buchan, J., Li, L., & MacDonell, S. G. (2011). Causal factors, benefits and challenges of test-driven development: Practitioners perceptions. Proceedings of the 18th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.
  2. Canfora, A. (2006). Evaluating advantages of TDD: A controlled experiment with professionals, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering.
  3. Lui, K. M., & Chan, C. C. (2004). Test driven development and software process improvement in China: Extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering (pp. 219-222).
  4. Mangalaraj, G., Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R. K., & Price, K. H. (2014). Distributed cognition in software development: an experimental investigation of the role of design patterns and collaboration. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 249-274.
  5. Moore, J. E. (2000). One road to exhaustion: An examination of work exhaustion in technology professionals. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 141-168.
  6. Tripp, J. F., & Riemenschneider, C. K. (2014). Towards an understanding of job satisfaction on agile teams: Agile development as work redesign. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  7. Wastell, D. (1999). Learning dysfunctions in information systems development: Overcoming the social defenses with traditional objects. MIS Quarterly, 23(4), 581-600.
  8. Westlund, S. G., & Hannon, J. C. (2008). Retaining talent: Assessing job satisfaction facets most significantly related to software developer turnover intentions. Journal of Information Technology Management, 19(4), 1-15.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Texas A&M University Texarkana, U., Bhadauria, V., Mahapatra, R., University of Texas Arlington, U., Nerur, S., & University of Texas Arlington, U.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University – Texarkana (US)
  • The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Published
2020-07-01
Volume
21
Pages
1045-1071
ISSN
1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3046467066
Cited by
9
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Texas at Arlington
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
test-driven development, software quality, task satisfaction, developer productivity, software development practices

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