KitchenhamMadeyskiBudgen16.PolishSubjects: KitchenhamMadeyskiBudgen16.PolishSubjects data

In reproducer: Reproduce Statistical Analyses and Meta-Analyses

KitchenhamMadeyskiBudgen16.PolishSubjects data

Description

If you use this data set please cite this R package and the following paper when accepted: Barbara Kitchenham, Lech Madeyski, David Budgen, Jacky Keung, Pearl Brereton, Stuart Charters, Shirley Gibbs, and Amnart Pohthong, 'Robust Statistical Methods for Empirical Software Engineering', Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 22, no.2, p. 579-630, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s10664-016-9437-5 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9437-5), URL: https://madeyski.e-informatyka.pl/download/KitchenhamMadeyskiESE.pdf

Usage

KitchenhamMadeyskiBudgen16.PolishSubjects

Format

A data frame with variables:

Judge

The identifier for each subject

Abstract

The identifier for each abstract - the code starts with a three alphanumeric string that defines the source of the abstract

OrderViewed

Each judge assessed 4 abstracts in sequence, this data item identifies the order in which the subject viewed the specified abstract

Completness1

Assessment by judge of question 1:Is the reason for the project clear? Can take values: Yes/No/Partly

Completness2

Assessment by judge of question 2: Is the specific aim/purpose of the study clear? Can take values: Yes/No/Partly

Completness3

Assessment by judge of question 3: If the aim is to describe a new or enhanced software technology (e.g. method, tool, procedure or process) is the method used to develop this technology defined? Can take values: Yes/No/Partly/NA

Completness4

Assessment by judge of question 4: Is the form (e.g. experiment, general empirical study, data mining, case study, survey, simulation etc.) that was used to evaluate the technology made clear? Can take values: Yes/No/Partly

Completness5

Assessment by judge of question 5: Is there a description of how the evaluation process was organised? Can take values: Yes/No/Partly

Completness6

Assessment by judge of question 6: Are the results of the evaluation clearly described? Can take values: Yes/No/Partly

Completness7

Assessment by judge of question 7: Are any limitations of the study reported?: Yes/No/Partly

Completness8

Assessment by judge of question 8: Are any ideas for future research presented?: Yes/No/Partly

Clarity

Assessment by judge of question regarding the overall understandability of the abstract: Please give an assessment of the clarity of this abstract by circling a number on the scale of 1-10 below, where a value of 1 represents Very Obscure and 10 represents Extremely Clearly Written.

Completness1NumValue

A numerical value for completeness question 1 where 0=No, Partly=0.5, yes =1

Completness2NumValue

A numerical value for completeness question 2 where 0=No, Partly=0.5, yes =1, NA means not applicable

Completness3NumValue

A numerical value for completeness question 3 where 0=No, Partly=0.5, yes =1, NA means not applicable or not answered

Completness4NumValue

A numerical value for completeness question 4 where 0=No, Partly=0.5, yes =1, NA means not applicable

Completness5NumValue

A numerical value for completeness question 5 where 0=No, Partly=0.5, yes =1, NA means not applicable

Completness6NumValue

A numerical value for completeness question 6 where 0=No, Partly=0.5, yes =1, NA means not applicable

Completness7NumValue

A numerical value for completeness question 7 where 0=No, Partly=0.5, yes =1, NA means not applicable

Completness8NumValue

A numerical value for completeness question 8 where 0=No, Partly=0.5, yes =1, NA means not applicable

Sum

The sum of the numerical completeness questions excluding those labelled NA

TotalQuestions

The count of the number of question related to completeness excluding questions considered not applicable

Completeness

Sum/TotalQuestions

Details

Data set collected at Wroclaw University of Technology (POLAND) by Lech Madeyski includes separate entries for each abstract assessed by a judge, that is 4 entries for each judge. Data collected from 16 subjects recruited from Wroclaw University of Technology who were each asked to assess 4 abstracts.

Note Only completeness question 2 was expected to be context dependent and have a NA (not applicable) answer, if other completeness answers were left blank, BAK coded the answer as NA

polishsubjects.txt

Source

https://madeyski.e-informatyka.pl/reproducible-research/

Examples

KitchenhamMadeyskiBudgen16.PolishSubjects

reproducer documentation built on Oct. 18, 2023, 5:10 p.m.