%0 Journal Article %1 regnell00 %A Regnell, Bjorn %A Runeson, Per %A Thelin, Thomas %D 2000 %J Empirical Software Engineering %K empirical requirements scenario %N 4 %P 331--356 %T Are the Perspectives Really Different? Further Experimentation on Scenario-Based Reading of Requirements %U http://www.metapress.com/link.asp?id=Q658G65074NN6590 %V 5

@article{regnell00, added-at = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100}, author = {Regnell, Bjorn and Runeson, Per and Thelin, Thomas}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ebdfd690bfb538fde6f730ad82a4cc55/neilernst}, citeulike-article-id = {272041}, comment = {- great discussion of their method, incl discussion on validity - problem seems to be with assigning students to perspectives they aren't familiar with (experience around 2.5) - glosses over a qualitative step: that the researchers have to characterize defects discovered into pre-existing categories. - if the software being studied didn't exist previously, then this work would be hard, since you wouldn't know what all defects were. - designer group used structured analysis (ERD, DFD, Statecharts) - tester group used equivalence partitioning (breaking input data into partitions (null, 0, 1, large) - user group used use case modeling - still not sure whether PBR is better than ad-hoc... maybe the advantage is more that you have to use well-defined techniques like SA}, description = {sdasda}, interhash = {90ea621bb1d363c023506d6daa627100}, intrahash = {ebdfd690bfb538fde6f730ad82a4cc55}, journal = {Empirical Software Engineering}, keywords = {empirical requirements scenario}, month = {December}, number = 4, pages = {331--356}, priority = {0}, timestamp = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100}, title = {Are the Perspectives Really Different? Further Experimentation on Scenario-Based Reading of Requirements}, url = {http://www.metapress.com/link.asp?id=Q658G65074NN6590}, volume = 5, year = 2000 }