Software engineering (3rd ed.): a practitioner's approach
Software engineering (3rd ed.): a practitioner's approach
Experimental design and analysis in software engineering, part 4: choosing an experimental design
ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes
A Controlled Experiment to Assess the Benefits of Procedure Argument Type Checking
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction
Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction
Software Engineering Economics
Software Engineering Economics
Empirical Software Engineering
On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers
Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
Does personality matter?: an analysis of code-review ability
Communications of the ACM - ACM at sixty: a look back in time
Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering
Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering
Aspect-oriented software development
Aspect-oriented software development
Using students as subjects - an empirical evaluation
Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement
ESEM '09 Proceedings of the 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation
Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation
Proceedings of the 7th symposium on Dynamic languages
Information and Software Technology
Do developers benefit from generic types?: an empirical comparison of generic and raw types in java
Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages & applications
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Rating of subjects is an important issue for empirical studies. First, it is desirable for studies that rely on comparisons between different groups to make sure that those groups are balanced, i.e. that subjects in different groups are comparable. Second, in order to understand to what extent the results of a study are generalizable it is necessary to understand whether the used subjects can be considered as representative. Third, for a deeper understanding of an experiment's results it is desirable to understand what different kinds of subjects achieved what results. This paper addresses this topic by a preliminary, exploratory study that analyzes three different possible criteria: university marks, self-estimation, and pretests. It turns out that neither university marks nor pretests yielded better results than self-estimation.