This article examines potential validity threats in a controlled software engineering experiment, outlining risks to conclusion, internal, construct, and externalThis article examines potential validity threats in a controlled software engineering experiment, outlining risks to conclusion, internal, construct, and external

Assessing Validity Threats in Controlled Software Engineering Experiments

2025/12/16 04:00
3 min read
For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com

Abstract

1 Introduction

2 Original Study: Research Questions and Methodology

3 Original Study: Validity Threats

4 Original Study: Results

5 Replicated Study: Research Questions and Methodology

6 Replicated Study: Validity Threats

7 Replicated Study: Results

8 Discussion

9 Related Work

10 Conclusions And References

\

3 Original Study: Validity Threats

Based on the checklist provided by Wohlin et al. [52], the relevant threats to our study are next described.

3.1 Conclusion Validity

1. Random heterogeneity of participants. The use of a within-subjects experimental design ruled out the risk of the variation due to individual differences among participants being larger than the variation due to the treatment.

3.2 Internal Validity

  1. History and maturation:

    – Since participants apply different techniques on different artefacts, learning effects should not be much of a concern. – Experimental sessions take place on different days. Given the association of grades to performance in the experiment, we expect students will try to do better on the following day, causing that the technique applied the last day gets a better effectiveness. To avoid this, different participants apply techniques in different orders. This way we cancel out the threat due to order of application (avoiding that a given technique gets benefited from the maturation effect). In any case, an analysis of the chosen techniques per day is done to study maturation effect.

    \

  2. Interactions with selection. Different behaviours in different technique application groups are ruled out by randomly assigning participants to groups. However, we will check it analysing the behaviour of groups.

    \

  3. Hypothesis guessing. Before filling in the questionnaire, participants in the study were informed about the goal of the study only partially. We told them that we wanted to know their preferences and opinions, but they were not aware of our research questions. In any case, if this threat is occurring, it would mean that our results for perceptions are the best possible ones, and therefore would set an upper bound.

    \

  4. Mortality. The fact that several participants did not give consent to participate in the study has affected the balance of the experiment.

  5. Order of Training. Techniques are presented in the following order: CR, BT and EP. If this threat had taken place, then CR would be the most effective (or their favourite).

3.3 Construct Validity

  1. Inadequate preoperational explanation of cause constructs. Cause constructs are clearly defined thanks to the extensive training received by participants on the study techniques.
  2. Inadequate preoperational explanation of effect constructs. The question being asked is totally clear and should not be subject to possible misinterpretations. However, since the perception is subjective, there exists the possibility that the question asked is interpreted differently by different participants, and hence, perceptions are related to how the question is interpreted. This issue should be further investigated in future studies.

3.4 External Validity

  1. Interaction of setting and treatment. We tried to make the faults seeded in the programs as representative as possible of reality.
  2. Generalisation to other subject types. As we have already mentioned, the type of subjects our sample represents are developers with little or none previous experience in testing techniques and junior programmers. The extent to which the results obtained in this study can be generalised to other subject types needs to be investigated. Of all threats listed, the only one that could affect the validity of the results of this study in an industrial context is the one related to generalisation to other subject types.

:::info Authors:

  1. Sira Vegas
  2. Patricia Riofr´ıo
  3. Esperanza Marcos
  4. Natalia Juristo

:::

:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

:::

\

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact crypto.news@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Tags:

You May Also Like

Why This New Trending Meme Coin Is Being Dubbed The New PEPE After Record Presale

Why This New Trending Meme Coin Is Being Dubbed The New PEPE After Record Presale

The post Why This New Trending Meme Coin Is Being Dubbed The New PEPE After Record Presale appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Crypto News 17 September 2025 | 20:13 The meme coin market is heating up once again as traders look for the next breakout token. While Shiba Inu (SHIB) continues to build its ecosystem and PEPE holds onto its viral roots, a new contender, Layer Brett (LBRETT), is gaining attention after raising more than $3.7 million in its presale. With a live staking system, fast-growing community, and real tech backing, some analysts are already calling it “the next PEPE.” Here’s the latest on the Shiba Inu price forecast, what’s going on with PEPE, and why Layer Brett is drawing in new investors fast. Shiba Inu price forecast: Ecosystem builds, but retail looks elsewhere Shiba Inu (SHIB) continues to develop its broader ecosystem with Shibarium, the project’s Layer 2 network built to improve speed and lower gas fees. While the community remains strong, the price hasn’t followed suit lately. SHIB is currently trading around $0.00001298, and while that’s a decent jump from its earlier lows, it still falls short of triggering any major excitement across the market. The project includes additional tokens like BONE and LEASH, and also has ongoing initiatives in DeFi and NFTs. However, even with all this development, many investors feel the hype that once surrounded SHIB has shifted elsewhere, particularly toward newer, more dynamic meme coins offering better entry points and incentives. PEPE: Can it rebound or is the momentum gone? PEPE saw a parabolic rise during the last meme coin surge, catching fire on social media and delivering massive short-term gains for early adopters. However, like most meme tokens driven largely by hype, it has since cooled off. PEPE is currently trading around $0.00001076, down significantly from its peak. While the token still enjoys a loyal community, analysts believe its best days may be behind it unless…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:50
USD/JPY Intervention: How Verbal Warnings Dramatically Slowed the Japanese Yen’s Slide

USD/JPY Intervention: How Verbal Warnings Dramatically Slowed the Japanese Yen’s Slide

BitcoinWorld USD/JPY Intervention: How Verbal Warnings Dramatically Slowed the Japanese Yen’s Slide TOKYO, March 2025 – Japanese authorities’ carefully calibrated
Share
bitcoinworld2026/03/30 23:25
USDH Power Struggle Ignites Stablecoin “Bidding Wars” Across DeFi: Bloomberg

USDH Power Struggle Ignites Stablecoin “Bidding Wars” Across DeFi: Bloomberg

A heated contest for control over a new dollar-pegged token has set the stage for what analysts say could define the next phase of the stablecoin industry. According to Bloomberg, a bidding war unfolded on Hyperliquid, one of crypto’s fastest-growing trading platforms, with the prize being the right to issue USDH, its native stablecoin. The competition drew some of the sector’s most prominent names, including Paxos, Sky, and Ethena, who later withdrew their bid, alongside the lesser-known Native Markets, a startup backed by Stripe stablecoin subsidiary Bridge. Hyperliquid Stablecoin Race Shows Branding and Partnerships Matter as Much as Tech Over the weekend, Hyperliquid’s validators, the contributors who secure the network and vote on key decisions, awarded the USDH contract to Native Markets over the weekend. Despite its relatively new status, the firm’s connection with Stripe helped it outpace more established rivals. Stablecoins underpin decentralized finance by providing a dollar-backed medium for collateral, settlement, and payments across applications. What began as a grassroots, community-led sector has evolved into a battleground for institutions and payment companies seeking revenue from interest on reserves. Circle, for example, shares proceeds from its USDC with Coinbase under a partnership designed to stabilize earnings during market swings. The Hyperliquid contest offered a rare glimpse into just how intense competition has become. Paxos pledged to take no revenue until USDH surpassed $1 billion in circulation. Agora offered to share 100% of net revenue with Hyperliquid, while Ethena put forward 95%. All were outbid by Native Markets, whose ties to Stripe’s $1.1 billion acquisition of Bridge and subsequent rollout of the Tempo blockchain positioned it as a strong contender. “Every stablecoin issuer is extremely desperate for supply,” said Zaheer Ebtikar, co-founder of Split Capital. “They are willing to publicly announce how much they are willing to offer. It just shows it’s a very tough business for stablecoin issuers.” While USDC remains dominant on Hyperliquid with more than $5.6 billion in deposits, the arrival of USDH could shift flows and revenue dynamics. Paxos co-founder Bhau Kotecha said the firm sees the exchange’s growth as an important opportunity, while Agora’s co-founder Nick van Eck warned that awarding the contract to a vertically integrated issuer risked undermining decentralization. Regulatory positioning also factored into the debate. Paxos operates under a New York trust charter and is seeking a federal license, while Bridge holds money transmitter approvals in 30 states. Native Markets, in a blog post, cited regulatory flexibility and deployment speed as reasons for its selection. Hyperliquid said the strong engagement from its community validated the process. Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire dismissed concerns over USDC’s status, noting on X that competition benefits the ecosystem. Analysts suggested that fears of centralization may be exaggerated, noting that Hyperliquid is likely to remain neutral and support multiple stablecoins. Still, the contest over USDH highlighted a new reality for stablecoins: branding, partnerships, and business strategy are becoming as decisive as technology. Native Markets Secures USDH Stablecoin Mandate on Hyperliquid Hyperliquid has concluded its governance vote for the USDH stablecoin, awarding the mandate to Native Markets after a closely watched process that drew weeks of community debate and rival proposals. USDH, described by Hyperliquid as a “Hyperliquid-first, compliant, and natively minted” dollar-backed token, is intended to reduce the platform’s dependence on USDC and strengthen its spot markets. Validators on the decentralized exchange voted in favor of Native Markets, a relatively new player backed by Stripe’s Bridge subsidiary, over established contenders including Paxos and Ethena. The outcome followed a string of proposals offering aggressive revenue-sharing terms to win validator support, underscoring the scale of incentives attached to controlling USDH. Hyperliquid’s exchange has become a critical hub for stablecoin liquidity, with $5.7 billion in USDC, around 8% of its total supply, currently held on the network. At prevailing treasury yields, that translates to an estimated $200 million to $220 million in annual revenue for Circle, underlining why a native alternative could be transformative. Hyperliquid’s validators, who secure the network and vote on key decisions, selected Native Markets following an on-chain governance process that concluded September 15. Native Markets has laid out a phased rollout for USDH, beginning with capped minting and redemption trials before expanding into spot markets. Its reserves will be managed in cash and treasuries by BlackRock, with on-chain tokenization through Superstate and Bridge. Yield from those reserves will be split between Hyperliquid’s Assistance Fund and ecosystem development. The launch of USDH comes as Hyperliquid records record profits from perpetual futures trading, with $106 million in revenue in August alone, and prepares to slash spot trading fees by 80% to bolster liquidity. Analysts say the move positions Hyperliquid to capture more of the stablecoin economics internally, marking a significant step in its bid to rival the largest players in decentralized finance
Share
CryptoNews2025/09/18 00:48