Experiences in Using Practitioner’s Checklists to Evaluate the Relevance of Experiments Reported in Requirements Engineering

Maia Daneva, Nicolaas Sikkel, Nelly Condori-Fernandez, Andrea Herrmann

    Research output: Book/ReportReportProfessional

    22 Downloads (Pure)


    Background: Requirements Engineering (RE) researchers recognize that for RE methods to be adopted in industry, practitioners should be able to evaluate the relevance of a study to their practice. Kitchenham et al proposed a set of perspective-based checklists, which demonstrated to be a useful instrument for this purpose. Specifically, the checklist from the practitioner’s perspective seems to be a good candidate for evaluating the relevance of RE studies to RE practice. However, little is known about the applicability of the checklist to the area of RE. Moreover, this checklist also requires a greater analysis about its reliability. Aim: The aim of this report is to propose a perspective-based checklist to the RE community that allows evaluating the relevance of experimental studies in RE from the practitioner’s/consultant’s viewpoint. Method: Our research followed an iterative design-science based approach in which we first analyzed the problems with a previously published checklist and developed an operationalized proposal for a new checklist to counter these problems. We performed a reliability evaluation of this new checklist. The research was performed with two practitioners and 24 papers that report experimental results on comprehensibility of software requirements specifications. Results: This report gives first-hand experiences of practitioners in evaluating the relevance of primary studies in RE, by using a perspective-based checklist. With respect to the reliability of the adjusted checklist, 9 of out 19 questions show an acceptable proportion of agreement (between two practitioners). Conclusions: Based on our experience, the contextualization and operationalization of a perspective-based checklist helps to make it more useful for the practitioners. However, to increase the reliability of the checklist, more reviewers are required and more discussion cycles are necessary. Our plan is to involve at least two more practitioners in order to improve the reliability of the practitioner checklist proposed.
    Original languageUndefined
    Place of PublicationEnschede
    PublisherCentre for Telematics and Information Technology (CTIT)
    Number of pages12
    Publication statusPublished - Aug 2011

    Publication series

    NameCTIT Technical Report Series
    PublisherUniversity of Twente, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology
    ISSN (Print)1381-3625


    • Requirements specifications
    • Reliability
    • Validation
    • IR-77780
    • METIS-278740
    • EWI-20373
    • Practitioner's checklist
    • SCS-Services
    • Experiments

    Cite this