Identifying, categorizing and mitigating threats to validity in software engineering secondary studies

• Published in: Information and software technology Vol. 106; pp. 201 - 230
• Main Authors: Ampatzoglou, Apostolos, Bibi, Stamatia, Avgeriou, Paris, Verbeek, Marijn, Chatzigeorgiou, Alexander
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 01.02.2019
• Subjects: Empirical software engineering; Literature Review; Secondary studies; Threats to Validity; Empirical software engineering; Literature Review; Threats to Validity; Secondary studies
• ISSN: 0950-5849; 1873-6025
• DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2018.10.006

Secondary studies are vulnerable to threats to validity. Although, mitigating these threats is crucial for the credibility of these studies, we currently lack a systematic approach to identify, categorize and mitigate threats to validity for secondary studies. In this paper, we review the corpus of secondary studies, with the aim to identify: (a) the trend of reporting threats to validity, (b) the most common threats to validity and corresponding mitigation actions, and (c) possible categories in which threats to validity can be classified. To achieve this goal we employ the tertiary study research method that is used for synthesizing knowledge from existing secondary studies. In particular, we collected data from more than 100 studies, published until December 2016 in top quality software engineering venues (both journals and conference). Our results suggest that in recent years, secondary studies are more likely to report their threats to validity. However, the presentation of such threats is rather ad hoc, e.g., the same threat may be presented with a different name, or under a different category. To alleviate this problem, we propose a classification schema for reporting threats to validity and possible mitigation actions. Both the classification of threats and the associated mitigation actions have been validated by an empirical study, i.e., Delphi rounds with experts. Based on the proposed schema, we provide a checklist, which authors of secondary studies can use for identifying and categorizing threats to validity and corresponding mitigation actions, while readers of secondary studies can use the checklist for assessing the validity of the reported results.