Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

Karen J. Rothermel

dblp:51/3773 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2000
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Software testing · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing
spreadsheet testing
0.012000
WYSIWYT testing in the spreadsheet paradigm: an empirical evaluation · ICSE 2000
Software testing
test adequacy
0.012000
WYSIWYT testing in the spreadsheet paradigm: an empirical evaluation · ICSE 2000

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

empirical evaluation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2000 WYSIWYT testing in the spreadsheet paradigm: an empirical evaluation
abstract
Is it possible to achieve some of the benefits of formal testing within the informal programming conventions of the spreadsheet paradigm? We have been working on an approach that attempts to do so via the development of a testing methodology for this paradigm. Our “What You See Is What You Test” (WYSIWYT) methodology supplements the convention by which spreadsheets provide automatic immediate visual feedback about values by providing automatic immediate visual feedback about “testedness”. In previous work we described this methodology; in this paper, we present empirical data about the methodology's effectiveness. Our results show that the use of the methodology was associated with significant improvement in testing effectiveness and efficiency even with no training on the theory of testing or test adequacy that the model implements. These results may be due at least in part to the fact that use of the methodology was associated with a significant reduction in overconfidence.
Karen J. Rothermel, Curtis R. Cook, Margaret M. Burnett, Justin Schonfeld, Thomas R. G. Green, Gregg Rothermel
ICSE1