Context There is a widespread belief in both SE and other branches of science that experience helps professionals to improve their performance. However, cases have been reported where experience not only does not have a positive influence but sometimes even degrades the performance of professionals. Aim Determine whether years of experience influence programmer performance. Method We have analysed 10 quasi-experiments executed both in academia with graduate and postgraduate students and in industry with professionals. The experimental task was to apply ITLD on two experimental problems and then measure external code quality and programmer productivity. Results Programming experience gained in industry does not appear to have any effect whatsoever on quality and productivity. Overall programming experience gained in academia does tend to have a positive influence on programmer performance. These two findings may be related to the fact that, as opposed to deliberate practice, routine practice does not appear to lead to improved performance. Experience in the use of productivity tools, such as testing frameworks and IDE also has positive effects. Conclusion Years of experience are a poor predictor of programmer performance. Academic background and specialized knowledge of task-related aspects appear to be rather good predictors.

Context: Test-driven development (TDD) is an agile practice claimed to improve the quality of a software product, as well as the productivity of its developers. A previous study (i.e., baseline experiment) at the University of Oulu (Finland) compared TDD to a test-last development (TLD) approach through a randomized controlled trial. The results failed to support the claims. Goal: We want to validate the original study results by replicating it at the University of Basilicata (Italy), using a different design. Method: We replicated the baseline experiment, using a crossover design, with 21 graduate students. We kept the settings and context as close as possible to the baseline experiment. In order to limit researchers bias, we involved two other sites (UPM, Spain, and Brunel, UK) to conduct blind analysis of the data. Results: The Kruskal-Wallis tests did not show any significant difference between TDD and TLD in terms of testing effort (p-value = .27 ), external code quality (pvalue = .82 ), and developers' productivity (p-value = .83 ). Nevertheless, our data revealed a difference based on the order in which TDD and TLD were applied, though no carry over effect. Conclusions: We verify the baseline study results, yet our results raises concerns regarding the selection of experimental objects, particularly with respect to their interaction with the order in which of treatments are applied.We recommend future studies to survey the tasks used in experiments evaluating TDD. Finally, to lower the cost of replication studies and reduce researchers' bias, we encourage other research groups to adopt similar multi-site blind analysis approach described in this paper.

Test-driven development (TDD) is an agile software development approach that has been widely claimed to improve software quality. However, the extent to which TDD improves quality appears to be largely dependent upon the characteristics of the study in which it is evaluated (e.g., the research method, participant type, programming environment, etc.). The particularities of each study make the aggregation of results untenable. Objectives: The goal of this paper is to: increase the accuracy and generalizability of the results achieved in isolated experiments on TDD, provide joint conclusions on the performance of TDD across different industrial and academic settings, and assess the extent to which the characteristics of the experiments affect the quality-related performance of TDD. Method : We conduct a family of 12 experiments on TDD in academia and industry. We aggregate their results by means of meta-analysis. We perform exploratory analyses to identify variables impacting the quality-related performance of TDD. Results: TDD novices achieve a slightly higher code quality with iterative test-last development (i.e., ITL, the reverse approach of TDD) than with TDD. The task being developed largely determines quality. The programming environment, the order in which TDD and ITL are applied, or the learning effects from one development approach to another do not appear to affect quality. The quality-related performance of professionals using TDD drops more than for students. We hypothesize that this may be due to their being more resistant to change and potentially less motivated than students. Conclusion: Previous studies seem to provide conflicting results on TDD performance (i.e., positive vs. negative, respectively). We hypothesize that these conflicting results may be due to different study durations, experiment participants being unfamiliar with the TDD process, or case studies comparing the performance achieved by TDD vs. the control approach (e.g., the waterfall model), each applied to develop a different system. Further experiments with TDD experts are needed to validate these hypotheses.

Software engineering (SE) experiments suffer from threats to validity that may impact their results. Replication allows researchers building on top of previous experiments' weaknesses and increasing the reliability of the findings. Illustrating the benefits of replication to increase the reliability of the findings and uncover moderator variables. We replicate an experiment on test-driven development (TDD) and address some of its threats to validity and those of a previous replication. We compare the replications' results and hypothesize on plausible moderators impacting results. Differences across TDD replications' results might be due to the operationalization of the response variables, the allocation of subjects to treatments, the allowance to work outside the laboratory, the provision of stubs, or the task. Replications allow examining the robustness of the findings, hypothesizing on plausible moderators influencing results, and strengthening the evidence obtained.