SpringerLink
Log in

A Catalog of Source Code Metrics – A Tertiary Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Software Quality: Higher Software Quality through Zero Waste Development (SWQD 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 472))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 448 Accesses

Abstract

Context: A large number of source code metrics are reported in the literature. It is necessary to systematically collect, describe and classify source code metrics to support research and practice.

Objective: We aim to utilize existing secondary studies to develop a catalog of source code metrics together with their descriptions. The catalog will also provide information about which units of code (e.g., operators, operands, lines of code, variables, parameters, code blocks, or functions) are used to measure the internal quality attributes and the scope on which they are collected.

Method: We conducted a tertiary study to identify secondary studies reporting source code metrics. We have classified the source code metrics according to the measured internal quality attributes, the units of code used in the measures, and the scope at which the source code metrics are collected.

Results: From 711 secondary studies, we identified 52 relevant secondary studies. We reported 423 source code metrics together with their descriptions and the internal quality attributes they measure. Source code metrics predominantly incorporate function as a unit of code to measure internal quality attributes. In contrast, several source code metrics use more than one unit of code when measuring internal quality attributes. Nearly 51% of the source code metrics are collected at the class scope, while almost 12% and 15% of source code metrics are collected at module and application levels, respectively.

Conclusions: Researchers and practitioners can use the extensive catalog to assess which source code metrics meet their individual needs based on the description and classification scheme presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/. Accessed 20 Oct 2022

  2. Ali, N.B., Petersen, K.: Evaluating strategies for study selection in systematic literature studies. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 1–4 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ali, N.B., Tanveer, B.: A comparison of citation sources for reference and citation-based search in systematic literature reviews. e-informatica Soft. Eng. J. 16, 220106 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ali, N.B., Usman, M.: Reliability of search in systematic reviews: towards a quality assessment framework for the automated-search strategy. Inf. Softw. Technol. 99, 133–147 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ampatzoglou, A., Bibi, S., Avgeriou, P., Chatzigeorgiou, A.: Guidelines for managing threats to validity of secondary studies in software engineering. In: Contemporary Empirical Methods in Software Engineering, pp. 415–441. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32489-6_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Arisholm, E., Briand, L., Foyen, A.: Dynamic coupling measurement for object-oriented software. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(8), 491–506 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Arvanitou, E., Ampatzoglou, A., Chatzigeorgiou, A., Galster, M., Avgeriou, P.: A map** study on design-time quality attributes and metrics. J. Syst. Softw. 127, 52–77 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bandi, A., Williams, B., Allen, E.: Empirical evidence of code decay: a systematic map** study. In: Proceedings - Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, WCRE, pp. 341–350 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bansiya, J., Davis, C.G.: A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(1), 4–17 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barros-Justo, J.L., Benitti, F.B., Matalonga, S.: Trends in software reuse research: a tertiary study. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 66, 103352 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Briand, L.C., Wüst, J.: Empirical studies of quality models in object-oriented systems. Adv. Comput. 56, 97–166 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Budgen, D., Brereton, P., Williams, N., Drummond, S.: What support do systematic reviews provide for evidence-informed teaching about software engineering practice?. e-informatica Softw. Eng. J. 14(1), 7–60 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Caulo, M., Scanniello, G.: A taxonomy of metrics for software fault prediction. In: 2020 46th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 429–436. IEEE (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chen, L., Babar, M.A., Zhang, H.: Towards an evidence-based understanding of electronic data sources. In: 14th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE), pp. 1–4 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20(6), 476–493 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Curcio, K., Santana, R., Reinehr, S., Malucelli, A.: Usability in agile software development: a tertiary study. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 64, 61–77 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. El Emam, K.: Benchmarking kappa: interrater agreement in software process assessments. Empir. Softw. Eng. 4(2), 113–133 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. El-Sharkawy, S., Yamagishi-Eichler, N., Schmid, K.: Metrics for analyzing variability and its implementation in software product lines: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 106, 1–30 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fenton, N., Bieman, J.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2019)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Halstead, M.H.: Elements of Software Science. Elsevier Science Ltd., Amsterdam (1977)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Hernandez-Gonzalez, E.Y., Sanchez-Garcia, A.J., Cortes-Verdin, M.K., Perez-Arriaga, J.C.: Quality metrics in software design: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference in Software Engineering Research and Innovation, pp. 80–86 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hoda, R., Salleh, N., Grundy, J., Tee, H.M.: Systematic literature reviews in agile software development: a tertiary study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 85, 60–70 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hosseini, S., Turhan, B., Gunarathna, D.: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on cross project defect prediction. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 45(2), 111–147 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Iftikhar, U., Ali, N.B., Börstler, J., Usman, M.: Dataset for a catalog of source code metrics - a tertiary study. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7219870. Accessed 20 Oct 2022

  25. Iftikhar, U., Ali, N.B., Börstler, J., Usman, M.: A tertiary study on links between source code metrics and external quality attributes. Information and Software Technology (Submitted)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jabangwe, R., Börstler, J., Šmite, D., Wohlin, C.: Empirical evidence on the link between object-oriented measures and external quality attributes: a systematic literature review. Empir. Softw. Eng. 20(3), 640–693 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaur, A.: A systematic literature review on empirical analysis of the relationship between code smells and software quality attributes. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 27(4), 1267–1296 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09348-6

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaur, A., Kaur, K., Pathak, K.: A proposed new model for maintainability index of open source software. In: Infocom Technologies and Optimization Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Reliability, pp. 1–6 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kaur, S., Singh, P.: How does object-oriented code refactoring influence software quality? Research landscape and challenges. J. Syst. Softw. 157, 110394 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kitchenham, B.A., Budgen, D., Brereton, P.: Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews, vol. 4. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Lacerda, G., Petrillo, F., Pimenta, M., Guéhéneuc, Y.G.: Code smells and refactoring: a tertiary systematic review of challenges and observations. J. Syst. Softw. 167, 110610 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lanza, M., Marinescu, R.: Object-Oriented Metrics in Practice: Using Software Metrics to Characterize, Evaluate, and Improve the Design of Object-Oriented Systems. Springer, Cham (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Li, W.: Another metric suite for object-oriented programming. J. Syst. Softw. 44(2), 155–162 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Malhotra, R., Chug, A.: Software maintainability: systematic literature review and current trends. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 26(08), 1221–1253 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Martins, L., Afonso, P.J., Freire, A., Costa, H.: Evolution of quality assessment in SPL: a systematic map**. IET Softw. 14(6), 572–581 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McCabe, T.J.: A complexity measure. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 2(4), 308–320 (1976)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. de Normalización, O.I.: ISO-IEC 25010: 2011 systems and software engineering-systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (square)-system and software quality models. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nuñez-Varela, A.S., Pérez-Gonzalez, H.G., Martínez-Perez, F.E., Soubervielle-Montalvo, C.: Source code metrics: a systematic map** study. J. Syst. Softw. 128, 164–197 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattsson, M.: Systematic map** studies in software engineering. In: 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) 12, pp. 1–10 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., Kuzniarz, L.: Guidelines for conducting systematic map** studies in software engineering: an update. Inf. Softw. Technol. 64, 1–18 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Saharudin, S., Wei, K., Na, K.: Machine learning techniques for software bug prediction: a systematic review. J. Comput. Sci. 16(11), 1558–1569 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Saraiva, J., et al.: Aspect-oriented software maintenance metrics: a systematic map** study. IET Semin. Digest 2012(1), 253–262 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Saraiva, J., Soares, S., Castor, F.: Towards a catalog of object-oriented software maintainability metrics. In: 2013 4th International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics (WETSoM), pp. 84–87. IEEE, San Francisco, CA (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sharma, A., Dubey, S.K.: Comparison of software quality metrics for object-oriented system. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Manage. Stud. (IJCSMS) 12, 12–24 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sreeji, K., Lakshmi, C.: A systematic literature review: recent trends and open issues in software refactoring. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 10(18), 39696–39707 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tran, H.K.V., Börstler, J., bin Ali, N., Unterkalmsteiner, M.: How good are my search strings? Reflections on using an existing review as a quasi-gold standard. e-Informatica Softw. Eng. J. 16(1), 220103 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Turner, M.: Digital libraries and search engines for software engineering research: an overview. Keele University, UK (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Vogel, M., et al.: Metrics in automotive software development: a systematic literature review. J. Softw. Evol. Process 33(2), e2296 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Yan, M., ** study. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 62(9), 1–18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-018-9608-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yan, M., ** study of quality assessment models for software products. In: 2017 International Conference on Software Analysis, Testing and Evolution (SATE), pp. 63–71. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work has been supported by ELLIIT, a Strategic Area within IT and Mobile Communications, funded by the Swedish Government. The work has also been supported by the OSIR project funded by the Swedish Knowledge Foundation (grant number 20190081).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden

    Umar Iftikhar, Nauman Bin Ali, Jürgen Börstler & Muhammad Usman

Authors
  1. Umar Iftikhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nauman Bin Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jürgen Börstler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muhammad Usman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umar Iftikhar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden

    Daniel Mendez

  2. Austrian Center for Digital Production (CDP), SBA Research gGmbH, Vienna, Austria

    Dietmar Winkler

  3. fortiss GmbH, Munich, Germany

    Johannes Kross

  4. TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Stefan Biffl

  5. Software Quality Lab GmbH, Linz, Austria

    Johannes Bergsmann

Appendix

Appendix

Table 8. List of included secondary studies (PS: No. of primary studies, QS: Quality score)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Iftikhar, U., Ali, N.B., Börstler, J., Usman, M. (2023). A Catalog of Source Code Metrics – A Tertiary Study. In: Mendez, D., Winkler, D., Kross, J., Biffl, S., Bergsmann, J. (eds) Software Quality: Higher Software Quality through Zero Waste Development. SWQD 2023. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 472. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31488-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31488-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-31487-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-31488-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation