skip to main content
research-article
Open access

A Second Look at the Impact of Passive Voice Requirements on Domain Modeling: Bayesian Reanalysis of an Experiment

Published: 09 August 2024 Publication History

Abstract

The quality of requirements specifications may impact subsequent, dependent software engineering (SE) activities. However, empirical evidence of this impact remains scarce and too often superficial as studies abstract from the phenomena under investigation too much. Two of these abstractions are caused by the lack of frameworks for causal inference and frequentist methods which reduce complex data to binary results. In this study, we aim to demonstrate (1) the use of a causal framework and (2) contrast frequentist methods with more sophisticated Bayesian statistics for causal inference. To this end, we reanalyze the only known controlled experiment investigating the impact of passive voice on the subsequent activity of domain modeling. We follow a framework for statistical causal inference and employ Bayesian data analysis methods to re-investigate the hypotheses of the original study. Our results reveal that the effects observed by the original authors turned out to be much less significant than previously assumed. This study supports the recent call to action in SE research to adopt Bayesian data analysis, including causal frameworks and Bayesian statistics, for more sophisticated causal inference.

References

[1]
Muneera Bano. 2015. Addressing the challenges of requirements ambiguity: A review of empirical literature. In 2015 IEEE Fifth International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE). IEEE, 21--24.
[2]
JC Barnes and Shannon J Linning. 2021. Statistical Power, P-Values, and the Positive Predictive Value. The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice 1 (2021), 337--343.
[3]
Yoav Benjamini and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological) 57, 1 (1995), 289--300.
[4]
Barry W Boehm and Philip N. Papaccio. 1988. Understanding and controlling software costs. IEEE transactions on software engineering 14, 10 (1988), 1462--1477.
[5]
Steve Brooks, Andrew Gelman, Galin Jones, and Xiao-Li Meng. 2011. Handbook of markov chain monte carlo. CRC press.
[6]
Paul-Christian Bürkner. 2017. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of statistical software 80 (2017), 1--28.
[7]
Thomas D Cook, Donald Thomas Campbell, and Arles Day. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Vol. 351. Houghton Mifflin Boston.
[8]
Felix Elwert. 2013. Graphical causal models. In Handbook of causal analysis for social research. Springer, 245--273.
[9]
Neil A Ernst. 2018. Bayesian hierarchical modelling for tailoring metric thresholds. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on mining software repositories. 587--591.
[10]
Henning Femmer. 2018. Requirements Quality Defect Detection with the Qualicen Requirements Scout. In REFSQ Workshops.
[11]
Henning Femmer, Daniel Méndez Fernández, Stefan Wagner, and Sebastian Eder. 2017. Rapid quality assurance with requirements smells. Journal of Systems and Software 123 (2017), 190--213.
[12]
Henning Femmer, Jan Kučera, and Antonio Vetrò. 2014. On the impact of passive voice requirements on domain modelling. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. 1--4.
[13]
Xavier Franch, Daniel Mendez, Andreas Vogelsang, Rogardt Heldal, Eric Knauss, Marc Oriol, Guilherme Travassos, Jeffrey Clark Carver, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2020. How do Practitioners Perceive the Relevance of Requirements Engineering Research? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2020).
[14]
Julian Frattini, Lloyd Montgomery, Jannik Fischbach, Daniel Mendez, Davide Fucci, and Michael Unterkalmsteiner. 2023. Requirements Quality Research: a harmonized Theory, Evaluation, and Roadmap. Requirements engineering (2023).
[15]
Julian Frattini, Lloyd Montgomery, Jannik Fischbach, Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Daniel Mendez, and Davide Fucci. 2022. A live extensible ontology of quality factors for textual requirements. In 2022 IEEE 30th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE, 274--280.
[16]
Julian Frattini, Lloyd Montgomery, Davide Fucci, Jannik Fischbach, Michael Unterkalmsteiner, and Daniel Mendez. 2023. Let's Stop Building at the Feet of Giants: Recovering unavailable Requirements Quality Artifacts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04670 (2023).
[17]
Carlo A Furia, Robert Feldt, and Richard Torkar. 2019. Bayesian data analysis in empirical software engineering research. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 9 (2019), 1786--1810.
[18]
Carlo A Furia, Richard Torkar, and Robert Feldt. 2022. Applying Bayesian analysis guidelines to empirical software engineering data: The case of programming languages and code quality. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 31, 3 (2022), 1--38.
[19]
Mirko Gabelica, Ružica Bojčić, and Livia Puljak. 2022. Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: mixed-methods study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (2022).
[20]
Gonzalo Génova, José M Fuentes, Juan Llorens, Omar Hurtado, and Valentin Moreno. 2013. A framework to measure and improve the quality of textual requirements. Requirements engineering 18 (2013), 25--41.
[21]
E. T. Jaynes. 2003. Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[22]
Leonid Kof. 2007. Treatment of passive voice and conjunctions in use case documents. In Natural Language Processing and Information Systems: 12th International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, NLDB 2007, Paris, France, June 27-29, 2007. Proceedings 12. Springer, 181--192.
[23]
Jennifer Krisch and Frank Houdek. 2015. The myth of bad passive voice and weak words an empirical investigation in the automotive industry. In 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE, 344--351.
[24]
J Jack Lee. 2011. Demystify statistical significance---time to move on from the p value to Bayesian analysis., 2--3 pages.
[25]
Richard McElreath. 2020. Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. CRC press.
[26]
Daniel Méndez, Stefan Wagner, Marcos Kalinowski, Michael Felderer, Priscilla Mafra, Antonio Vetrò, Tayana Conte, M-T Christiansson, Des Greer, Casper Lassenius, et al. 2017. Naming the pain in requirements engineering: Contemporary problems, causes, and effects in practice. Empirical software engineering 22 (2017), 2298--2338.
[27]
Daniel Méndez Fernández and Birgit Penzenstadler. 2015. Artefact-based requirements engineering: the AMDiRE approach. Requirements Engineering 20 (2015), 405--434.
[28]
Tim Menzies and Martin Shepperd. 2019. "Bad smells" in software analytics papers. Information and software technology 112 (2019), 35--47.
[29]
Lloyd Montgomery, Davide Fucci, Abir Bouraffa, Lisa Scholz, and Walid Maalej. 2022. Empirical research on requirements quality: a systematic mapping study. Requirements Engineering 27, 2 (2022), 183--209.
[30]
Judea Pearl, Madelyn Glymour, and Nicholas P Jewell. 2016. Causal inference in statistics: A primer. John Wiley & Sons.
[31]
Keith Thomas Phalp, Jonathan Vincent, and Karl Cox. 2007. Assessing the quality of use case descriptions. Software Quality Journal 15, 1 (2007), 69--97.
[32]
Klaus Pohl. 2016. Requirements engineering fundamentals: a study guide for the certified professional for requirements engineering exam-foundation level-IREB compliant. Rocky Nook, Inc.
[33]
Julien Siebert. 2023. Applications of statistical causal inference in software engineering. Information and Software Technology (2023), 107198.
[34]
Richard Torkar, Robert Feldt, and Carlo A Furia. 2020. Bayesian data analysis in empirical software engineering: The case of missing data. Contemporary Empirical Methods in Software Engineering (2020), 289--324.
[35]
Sira Vegas, Cecilia Apa, and Natalia Juristo. 2015. Crossover designs in software engineering experiments: Benefits and perils. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 42, 2 (2015), 120--135.
[36]
Stefan Wagner, Daniel Méndez Fernández, Michael Felderer, Antonio Vetrò, Marcos Kalinowski, Roel Wieringa, Dietmar Pfahl, Tayana Conte, Marie-Therese Christiansson, Desmond Greer, et al. 2019. Status quo in requirements engineering: A theory and a global family of surveys. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 28, 2 (2019), 1--48.
[37]
Jeff S Wesner and Justin PF Pomeranz. 2021. Choosing priors in Bayesian ecological models by simulating from the prior predictive distribution. Ecosphere 12, 9 (2021), e03739.
[38]
Stefan Winter, Christopher S Timperley, Ben Hermann, Jürgen Cito, Jonathan Bell, Michael Hilton, and Dirk Beyer. 2022. A retrospective study of one decade of artifact evaluations. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 145--156.
[39]
Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in software engineering. Springer Science & Business Media.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
WSESE '24: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Methodological Issues with Empirical Studies in Software Engineering
April 2024
87 pages
ISBN:9798400705670
DOI:10.1145/3643664
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

  • Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 August 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. requirements engineering
  2. requirements quality
  3. controlled experiment
  4. bayesian data analysis

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

WSESE '24
Sponsor:

Upcoming Conference

ICSE 2025

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 44
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)44
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)22
Reflects downloads up to 19 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media