Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 37 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 41 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 10 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 15 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 84 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 198 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 448 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 31 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Standards of Validity and the Validity of Standards in Behavioral Software Engineering Research: The Perspective of Psychological Test Theory (1809.01940v1)

Published 6 Sep 2018 in cs.SE

Abstract: Background. There are some publications in software engineering research that aim at guiding researchers in assessing validity threats to their studies. Still, many researchers fail to address many aspects of validity that are essential to quantitative research on human factors. Goal. This paper has the goal of triggering a change of mindset in what types of studies are the most valuable to the behavioral software engineering field, and also provide more details of what construct validity is. Method. The approach is based on psychological test theory and draws upon methods used in psychology in relation to construct validity. Results. In this paper, I suggest a different approach to validity threats than what is commonplace in behavioral software engineering research. Conclusions. While this paper focuses on behavioral software engineering, I believe other types of software engineering research might also benefit from an increased focus on construct validity.

Citations (21)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (1)