An Empirical Study of Fault Localization for End-User Programmers

End users develop more software than any other group of programmers, using software authoring devices such as e-mail filtering editors, by-demonstration macro builders, and spreadsheet environments. Despite this, there has been little research on finding ways to help these programmers with the dependability of their software. We have been addressing this problem in several ways, one of which includes supporting end-user debugging activities through fault localization techniques. This paper presents the results of an empirical study conducted in an end-user programming environment to examine the impact of two separate factors in fault localization techniques that affect technique effectiveness. Our results shed new insights into fault localization techniques for end-user programmers and the factors that affect them, with significant implications for the evaluation of those techniques.

Incorporating Varying Test Costs and Fault Severities into Test Case Prioritization

Test case prioritization techniques schedule test cases for regression testing in an order that increases their ability to meet some performance goal. One performance goal, rate offault detection, measures how quickly faults are detected within the testing process. In previous work we provided a metric, APFD, for measuring rate of fault detection, and techniques for prioritizing test cases to improve APFD, and reported the results of experiments using those techniques. This metric and these techniques, however, applied only in cases in which test costs and fault severity are uniform. In this paper, we present a new metric for assessing the rate of fault detection of prioritized test cases, that incorporates varying test case and fault costs. We present the results of a case study illustrating the application of the metric. This study raises several practical questions that might arise in applying test case prioritization; we discuss how practitioners could go about answering these questions.

Food Handling Practices, Knowledge and Beliefs of Families with Young Children Based on the Health Belief Model

Objective: To determine current food handling practices, knowledge and beliefs of primary food handlers with children 10 years old and the relationship between these components. Design: Surveys were developed based on FightBac!™ concepts and the Health Belief Model (HBM) construct. Participants: The majority of participants (n= 503) were females (67%), Caucasians (80%), aged between 30 to 49 years old (83%), had one or two children (83%), prepared meals all or most of the time (76%) and consumed meals away from home three times or less per week (66%). Analysis: Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho) (p<0.05 and one-tail) and Chi-square were used to examine frequency and correlations. Results: Few participants reached the food safety objectives of Healthy People 2010 for safe food handling practices (79%). Mixed results were reported for perceived susceptibility. Only half of the participants (53-54%) reported high perceived severity for their children if they contracted food borne illness. Most participants were confident of their food handling practices for their children (91%) and would change their food handling practices if they or their family members previously experienced food poisoning (79%). Participants’ reasons for high self-efficacy were learning from their family and independently acquiring knowledge and skills from the media, internet or job. The three main barriers to safe food handling were insufficient time, lots of distractions and lack of control of the food handling practices of other people in the household. Participants preferred to use food safety information that is easy to understand, has scientific facts, causes feelings of health-threat and has lots of pictures or visuals. Participants demonstrate high levels of knowledge in certain areas of the FightBac!TM concepts but lacked knowledge in other areas. Knowledge and cues to action were most supportive of the HBM construct, while perceived susceptibility was least supportive of the HBM construct. Conclusion: Most participants demonstrate many areas to improve in their food handling practices, knowledge and beliefs. Adviser: Julie A. Albrecht