
arXiv: 1901.09850
Context: Over the past decade Software Engineering research has seen a steady increase in survey-based studies, and there are several guidelines providing support for those willing to carry out surveys. The need for auditing survey research has been raised in the literature. Checklists have been used to assess different types of empirical studies, such as experiments and case studies. Objective: This paper proposes a checklist to support the design and assessment of survey-based research in software engineering grounded in existing guidelines for survey research. We further evaluated the checklist in the research practice context. Method: To construct the checklist, we systematically aggregated knowledge from 14 methodological papers supporting survey-based research in software engineering. We identified the key stages of the survey process and its recommended practices through thematic analysis and vote counting. To improve our initially designed checklist we evaluated it using a mixed evaluation approach involving experienced researchers. Results: The evaluation provided insights regarding limitations of the checklist in relation to its understanding and objectivity. In particular, 19 of the 38 checklist items were improved according to the feedback received from its evaluation. Finally, a discussion on how to use the checklist and what its implications are for research practice is also provided. Conclusion: The proposed checklist is an instrument suitable for auditing survey reports as well as a support tool to guide ongoing research with regard to the survey design process.
arXiv preprint
Software Engineering (cs.SE), FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Software Engineering, Programvaruteknik, Methodology, Software Engineering, Assessment, Survey, Checklist
Software Engineering (cs.SE), FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Software Engineering, Programvaruteknik, Methodology, Software Engineering, Assessment, Survey, Checklist
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 60 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
