CFP last date
20 June 2024
Call for Paper
July Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming July edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 June 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
Reseach Article

On Empirical Comparison of Checklist-based Reading and Adhoc Reading for Code Inspection

by R. O. Oladele, H. O. Adedayo
International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 87 - Number 1
Year of Publication: 2014
Authors: R. O. Oladele, H. O. Adedayo

R. O. Oladele, H. O. Adedayo . On Empirical Comparison of Checklist-based Reading and Adhoc Reading for Code Inspection. International Journal of Computer Applications. 87, 1 ( February 2014), 35-39. DOI=10.5120/15174-3251

@article{ 10.5120/15174-3251,
author = { R. O. Oladele, H. O. Adedayo },
title = { On Empirical Comparison of Checklist-based Reading and Adhoc Reading for Code Inspection },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { February 2014 },
volume = { 87 },
number = { 1 },
month = { February },
year = { 2014 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 35-39 },
numpages = {9},
url = { },
doi = { 10.5120/15174-3251 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-06T22:04:49.736013+05:30
%A R. O. Oladele
%A H. O. Adedayo
%T On Empirical Comparison of Checklist-based Reading and Adhoc Reading for Code Inspection
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 87
%N 1
%P 35-39
%D 2014
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA

Inspection is a proven approach that is commonly used to manage software quality. To this end many inspection techniques such as Checklist-Based Reading (CBR), Perspective-Based Reading (PBR), Usage-Based Reading (UBR), and Defect-Based Reading (DBR) have been proposed in the literature. Unfortunately, plethora of empirical studies carried out to evaluate these reading techniques have produced inconsistent and conflicting results. Consequently, ad hoc reading and CBR still remain the standard reading techniques in software organizations. This paper investigates the performance of ad hoc and CBR techniques in a traditional paper-based environment. Seventeen undergraduate students of computer science majority of whom are in their final year were used as subjects in a controlled experiment. Results of the experiment indicate that CBR is significantly superior to ad hoc reading in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, effort, and number of false positives. On the average, 4 faults were detected in 69 minutes using ad hoc reading while 11 faults were detected in 42. 5 minutes using Checklist-based reading. Also the average number of false positive is about 3. 13 in checklist-based approach as against about 6. 44 in ad hoc approach.

  1. Sommerville, Ian 2007. Software Engineering. Eighth Edition. Addison-Wesley.
  2. Laitenberger, Oliver 2002. A Survey of Software Inspection technologies, handbook on Software Engineering and knowledge Engineering, vol. II, 2002.
  3. Akinola, O. S. , Osofisan, A. O. 2009. An Empirical Comparative of Checklist-based and Ad hoc Code Reading Techniques in a Distributed Groupware Environment. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 5(1): 25-35
  4. Porter, A. A, Votta, L. G. and Basili, V. R. 1995. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: A replicated experiment. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 21(Harvey, 1996):563-575.
  5. Laitenberge, O. , and DeBaud, J. M. 2002. An Encompassing life cycle centric survey of Software Inspection. Journal of systems and software, 50, 5-31.
  6. Oladele, R. O. 2010. Reading Techniques for Software Inspection: Review and Analysis. Journal of Institute of Mathematics and Computer Sciences (Computer Science Series), India, 21(2): 199 – 209
  7. Basili, V. R. , Green, S. , Laitenberger, O. , Lanubile, F. , Shull, F. , Sørumgård, S. and Zelkowitz, M. V. 1996. The Empirical Investigation of Perspective-Based Reading. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal, 1(2):133-164.
  8. Ciolkowski, M. , Differding, C. , Laitenberger, O. , and Münch, J. 1997. "Empirical Investigation of Perspective-Based Reading: A Replicated Experiment", ISERN Report no. 97-13.
  9. Shull, F. 1998. Developing Techniques for Using Software Documents: A Series of Empirical Studies, PhD Thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Maryland, USA.
  10. Biffl, S. 2001. Software Inspection Techniques to Support Project and Quality Management, Habilitationsschrift, Shaker Verlag, Austria.
  11. Halling, M. , Biffl, S. , Grechenig, T. and Köhle, M. 2001. Using Reading Techniques to Focus Inspection Performance. Proc. of the 27th Euromicro Workshop on Software Process and Product Improvement, 248-257.
  12. Parnas, D. L. and Weiss, D. M. 1985. Active design reviews: Principles and practices. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Engineering, Aug. 1985, 215 – 222
  13. Laitenberger, O. , and DeBaud, J. M. 2000. An Encompassing Life-cycle Centric Survey of Software Inspection. Journal of Systems and Software, 50, 5-31
  14. Fagan, M. E. 1976. Design and Code Inspections to reduce errors in Program Development. IBM Systems Journal, 15(3):182-21
  15. Fagan, M. E. 1986. Advances in Software Inspection, IEEE Trans. On Software Engineering, SE-12(7):744-751.
  16. Denger, C. , Ciolkowski, M. , Lanubile, F. 2004. Does Active Guidance Improve Software Inspections? A Preliminary Empirical Study; 2004; Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference SOFTWARE ENGINEERING February 17-19, 2004, Innsbruck, Austria; 408-413
  17. Berling, T. , Thelin, T. 2004. A Case Study of Reading Techniques in a Software Company; Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'04)
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences


Checklist-Based Reading Ad hoc Reading Inspection Techniques Code Inspection