Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing user stories: the influence of template differences and gender-related problem-solving styles

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

User stories are often used for elicitation, specification, and prioritisation of requirements. There are several user story templates, varying in their structure (particularly, in the order in which they present their elements), and also in the elements they use (namely, some user story templates include personas, while others do not). The potential benefits and shortcomings of choosing one template over another need to be understood, so that practitioners can make informed choices on the extent to which a particular user story template can affect user stories’ quality, leading to ambiguity, lack of completeness, or accidental complexity. Our goal was to analyse the differences between 4 alternative user story templates when creating and understanding user stories. In addition, we used the GenderMag framework to assess the effects of different problem-solving styles, usually associated with gender, while performing the tasks. We conducted a quasi-experiment. We asked 41 participants to perform creation and understanding tasks with the different user story templates. We measured their effectiveness using metrics of task success; their speed, with task duration; their visual effort, collected with an eye-tracker; and their perceived effort, with the NASA-TLX questionnaire. We characterised the participants’ problem-solving styles with a GenderMag questionnaire. Regarding the impact of the different templates in creating user stories, we observed statistically significant differences in some of the metrics for effectiveness, speed, and visual effort. We observed small differences in the participants’ visual effort while understanding user stories specified with different templates. Concerning the impact of different problem-solving styles, in the creation tasks, we found differences in time, visual effort, and perceived effort. Regarding understanding tasks, we observed differences in effectiveness, time, and visual effort, but not in their perceived effort. Although some templates outperformed others in a few metrics, no template obtained the best overall result. As such, we found no compelling evidence that one template is “better” than the others. This suggests the recommended template may depend on the goal we want to achieve, e.g., effectiveness or speed. The differences associated with the different problem-solving styles also suggest no overall superiority of any of those styles, hinting at a gender-neutral effect of the different templates. These preliminary conclusions should be further consolidated via the conduction of replications.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability Statements

All data generated or analysed during this study are available in Zenodo [78].

References

  1. Méndez Fernándes D (2018) Supporting requirements-engineering research that industry needs: the napire initiative. IEEE Softw 35(01):112–116. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2017.4541045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Méndez Fernándes D, Wagner S. Naming the pain in requirements engineering. http://napire.org/#/home. Access Jan 2022

  3. Cohn M (2004) User stories applied: for agile software development. Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc, Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lucassen G, Dalpiaz F, van der Werf J, Brinkkemper S (2016) The use and effectiveness of user stories in practice. In: REFSQ 2016, pp 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_14

  5. Hudson W (2013) User stories don’t help users: introducing persona stories. Interactions 20(6):50–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/2517668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pichler R. From personas to user stories. https://www.romanpichler.com/blog/personas-epics-user-stories/. Access Jan 2022

  7. Pichler R. 10 tips for writing good user stories. https://www.romanpichler.com/blog/10-tips-writing-good-user-stories/. Access Jan 2022

  8. Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR (1991) The structure of work: job design and roles. In: Dunnettem MD, Hough LM (ed.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2nd edn. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, pp 165–207. Chap. 3. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-97200-003

  9. Thompson G (2014) Introducing functional grammar, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Burnett M, Stumpf S, Macbeth J, Makri S, Beckwith L, Kwan I, Peters A, Jernigan W (2016) GenderMag: a method for evaluating software’s gender inclusiveness. Interact Comput 28(6):760–787. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwv046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Simon SJ (2001) The impact of culture and gender on web sites: an empirical study. DATA BASE 32(1):18–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/506740.506744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Margolis J, Fisher A (2002) Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Hou W, Kaur M, Komlodi A, Lutters WG, Boot L, Cotten SR, Morrell C, Ozok AA, Tufekci Z (2006) “Girls don’t waste time”: pre-adolescent attitudes toward ICT. In: Olson GM, Jeffries R (eds) Extended abstracts proceedings of the 2006 conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI 2006. ACM, Montréal, pp 875–880. https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125622

  14. Burnett MM, Beckwith L, Wiedenbeck S, Fleming SD, Cao J, Park TH, Grigoreanu V, Rector K (2011) Gender pluralism in problem-solving software. Interact Comput 23(5):450–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cafferata P, Tybout AM (1989) Gender differences in information processing: a selectivity interpretation. Lexington Books, Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising

  16. Meyers-Levy J, Maheswaran D (1991) Exploring differences in males’ and females’ processing strategies. J Consum Res 18(1):63–70. https://doi.org/10.1086/209241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. O’Donnell E, Johnson E (2001) Gender effects on processing effort during analytical procedures. Int J Auditing 5:91–105

    Google Scholar 

  18. Meyers-Levy J, Loken B (2015) Revisiting gender differences: what we know and what lies ahead. J Consum Psychol 25(1):129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Durndell A, Haag Z (2002) Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the internet and reported experience with the internet, by gender, in an east european sample. Comput Hum Behav 18(5):521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00006-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hartzel K (2003) How self-efficacy and gender issues affect software adoption and use. Commun ACM 46:167–171. https://doi.org/10.1145/903893.903933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Appel M, Kronberger N, Aronson J (2011) Stereotype threat impairs ability building: effects on test preparation among women in science and technology. Eur J Soc Psychol 41(7):904–913. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Huffman AH, Whetten J, Huffman WH (2013) Using technology in higher education: the influence of gender roles on technology self-efficacy. Comput Hum Behav 29(4):1779–1786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Weber EU, Blais A-R, Betz NE (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak 15(4):263–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc 9(3):522–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Charness G, Gneezy U (2012) Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. J Econ Behav Organ 83(1):50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Beckwith L, Kissinger C, Burnett M, Wiedenbeck S, Lawrance J, Blackwell A, Cook C (2006) Tinkering and gender in end-user programmers’ debugging. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Montréal, pp 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124808

  27. Rosner D, Bean J (2009) Learning from IKEA hacking: I’m not one to decoupage a tabletop and call it a day. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Boston, pp 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518768

  28. Burnett M, Fleming SD, Iqbal S, Venolia G, Rajaram V, Farooq U, Grigoreanu V, Czerwinski M (2010) Gender differences and programming environments: across programming populations. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. ACM, Bolzano-Bozen, pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1852786.1852824

  29. Gralha C, Goulão M, Araújo J (2019) Analysing gender differences in building social goal models: a quasi-experiment. In: 2019 IEEE 27th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). . IEEE, pp 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2019.00027

  30. Gralha C, Goulão M, Araujo J (2020) Are there gender differences when interacting with social goal models? Empir Softw Eng 25(6):5416–5453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09883-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Marcano A. Old favourite: feature injection user stories on a business value theme. http://antonymarcano.com/blog/2011/03/fi_stories/. Access Jan 2022

  32. Cao A, Chintamani K, Pandya A, Ellis D (2009) NASA TLX: software for assessing subjective mental workload. Behav Res Methods 41(1):113–117. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Vorvoreanu M, Zhang L, Huang Y, Hilderbrand C, Steine-Hanson Z, Burnett M (2019) From gender biases to gender-inclusive design: an empirical investigation. In: ACM SIGCHI. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300283

  34. Gralha C, Pereira R, Goulão M, Araújo J (2021) On the impact of using different templates on creating and understanding user stories. In: 2021 IEEE 29th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE51729.2021.00026

  35. Beck K, Beedle M, Van Bennekum A, Cockburn A, Cunningham W, Fowler M, Grenning J, Highsmith J, Hunt A, Jeffries R, et al. Manifesto for agile software development. https://www.agilealliance.org/agile101/the-agile-manifesto/. Access Jan 2022

  36. Halliday M (1994) An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  37. Burnett M, Horvath A, Oleson A. GenderMag Personas Foundations Document. http://eusesconsortium.org/gender/GenderMagPersona-FoundationDocuments/Foundations.html. Access Jan 2022

  38. Radach R, Hyona J, Deubel H (2003) The mind’s eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sharafi Z, Soh Z, Guéhéneuc Y-G (2015) A systematic literature review on the usage of eye-tracking in software engineering. Inf Softw Technol 67:79–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.06.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124(3):372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Duchowski A (2017) Eye tracking methodology: theory and practice, 3rd edn. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57883-5

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Fritz T, Begel A, Müller SC, Yigit-Elliott S, Züger M (2014) Using psycho-physiological measures to assess task difficulty in software development. In: 36th International Conference on Software Engineering ICSE 2014. ACM, pp 402–413. https://doi.org/10.1145/2568225.2568266

  43. Paas FGWC, van Merriënboer JJG (1993) The efficiency of instructional conditions: an approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 35(4):737–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089303500412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Paas FGWC, van Merriënboer JJG (1994) Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educ Psychol Rev 6(4):351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yeh YY, Wickens CD (1988) Dissociation of performance and subjective measures of workload. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 30(1):111–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088803000110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Welford AT (1978) Mental workload as a function of demand, capacity, strategy and skill. Ergonomics 21(3):151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137808931710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hancock PA, Chignell MH (1986) Toward a theory of mental workload: Stress and adaptability in human-machine systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 378–383

  48. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hart SG (2006) NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 50. SAGE Publications, pp 904–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909

  50. Choma J, Zaina L, Beraldo D (2016) Userx story: incorporating ux aspects into user stories elaboration. In: International conference on Human–Computer Interaction (HCI 2016). Springer, pp 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39510-4_13

  51. Nielsen J (1994) 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/. Access Jan 2022

  52. Dalpiaz F, van der Schalk I, Brinkkemper S, Aydemir F, Lucassen G (2019) Detecting terminological ambiguity in user stories: tool and experimentation. Inf Softw Technol 110:3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Dalpiaz F, Sturm A (2020) Conceptualizing requirements using user stories and use cases: a controlled experiment. In: REFSQ 2020, vol 12045, pp 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44429-7_16

  54. Liskin O, Pham R, Kiesling S, Schneider K (2014) Why we need a granularity concept for user stories. In: Cantone G, Marchesi M (eds.) XP 2014, vol 179. Springer, Cham, pp 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06862-6_8

  55. Lin J, Yu H, Shen Z, Miao C (2014) Using goal net to model user stories in agile software development. In: SNPD 2014. IEEE Computer Society, Las Vegas, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/SNPD.2014.6888731

  56. Sharafi Z, Marchetto A, Susi A, Antoniol G, Guéhéneuc Y-G (2013) An empirical study on the efficiency of graphical vs. textual representations in requirements comprehension. In: 2013 21st International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). IEEE, pp 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2013.6613831

  57. Guéhéneuc Y-G (2006) Taupe: towards understanding program comprehension. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research. CASCON ’06. IBM Corp., Riverton. https://doi.org/10.1145/1188966.1188968

  58. Yusuf S, Kagdi H, Maletic JI (2007) Assessing the comprehension of uml class diagrams via eye tracking. In: 5th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, 2007. ICPC’07. IEEE, pp 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2007.10

  59. Jeanmart S, Guéhéneuc Y-G, Sahraoui H, Habra N (2009) Impact of the visitor pattern on program comprehension and maintenance. In: Proceedings of the 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ESEM ’09. IEEE Computer Society, Lake Buena Vista, pp 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2009.5316015

  60. Sharif B, Maletic JI (2010) An eye tracking study on the effects of layout in understanding the role of design patterns. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), 2010. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSM.2010.5609582. IEEE, pp 1–10

  61. De Smet B, Lempereur L, Sharafi Z, Guéhéneuc Y-G, Antoniol G, Habra N (2014) Taupe: visualizing and analyzing eye-tracking data. Sci Comput Program 79:260–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2012.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Cagiltay NE, Tokdemir G, Kilic O, Topalli D (2013) Performing and analyzing non-formal inspections of entity relationship diagram (erd). J Syst Softw 86(8):2184–2195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.03.106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Santos M, Gralha C, Goulão M, Araujo J, Moreira A, Cambeiro J (2016) What is the impact of bad layout in the understandability of social goal models? In: 2016 IEEE 24th International on Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE, pp 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2016.51

  64. Santos M, Gralha C, Goulão M, Araujo J, Moreira A (2018) On the impact of semantic transparency on understanding and reviewing social goal models. In: 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE, pp 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00031

  65. Crosby ME, Scholtz J, Wiedenbeck S (2002) The roles beacons play in comprehension for novice and expert programmers. In: 14th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, pp 58–73. https://www.ppig.org/files/2002-PPIG-14th-crosby.pdf

  66. Busjahn T, Bednarik R, Schulte C (2014) What influences dwell time during source code reading? Analysis of element type and frequency as factors. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. ETRA ’14, pp 335–338. https://doi.org/10.1145/2578153.2578211

  67. Rodeghero P, McMillan C, McBurney PW, Bosch N, D’Mello S (2014) Improving automated source code summarization via an eye-tracking study of programmers. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2014, pp 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1145/2568225.2568247

  68. Katona J (2021) Clean and dirty code comprehension by eyetracking based evaluation using GP3 eye tracker. Acta Polytech Hungarica 18(1):79–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Busjahn T, Schulte C, Busjahn A (2011) Analysis of code reading to gain more insight in program comprehension. In: Proceedings of the 11th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, pp 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2094131.2094133

  70. Binkley D, Davis M, Lawrie D, Maletic JI, Morrell C, Sharif B (2013) The impact of identifier style on effort and comprehension. Empir Softw Eng 18(2):219–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-012-9201-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD (1999) Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 125(3):367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Pajares F, Miller MD (1994) Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: a path analysis. J Educ Psychol 86(2):193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Beckwith L, Burnett M, Wiedenbeck S, Cook C, Sorte S, Hastings M (2005) Effectiveness of end-user debugging software features: are there gender issues? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Portland, pp 869–878. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055094

  74. Torkzadeh G, Koufteros X (1994) Factorial validity of a computer self-efficacy scale and the impact of computer training. Educ Psychol Meas 54(3):813–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054003028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Fisher M, Cox A, Zhao L (2006) Using sex differences to link spatial cognition and program comprehension. In: 2006 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. IEEE, pp 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSM.2006.72

  76. Sharafi Z, Soh Z, Guéhéneuc Y-G, Antoniol G (2012) Women and men—different but equal: on the impact of identifier style on source code reading. In: 20th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). IEEE, pp 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPC.2012.6240505

  77. Basili V, Rombach D (1988) The TAME project: towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 14(6):758–773. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.6156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Gralha C, Pereira R, Goulão M, Araújo J. Assessing user stories: the influence of template differences and gender-related problem-solving styles: companion site. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6979649. Access Jan 2022

  79. Runeson P, Höst M, Rainer A, Regnell B (2012) Case study research in software engineering: guidelines and examples. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  80. TLX@NASA: NASA TLX Paper/Pensil Version. https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/TLX/tlxpaperpencil.php. Access Jan 2022

  81. Sharafi Z, Shaffer T, Sharif B, Guéhéneuc Y-G (2015) Eye-tracking metrics in software engineering. In: 2015 Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2015.53. IEEE, pp 96–103

  82. Jacob RJ, Karn KS (2003) Eye tracking in human–computer interaction and usability research: ready to deliver the promises. In: The mind’s eye: cognitive aspects of eye movement research. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451020-4/50031-1

  83. Porras GC, Guéhéneuc Y-G (2010) An empirical study on the efficiency of different design pattern representations in UML class diagrams. Empir Softw Eng 15(5):493–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-009-9125-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson M, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2012) Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  85. Vegas S, Apa C, Juristo N (2016) Crossover designs in software engineering experiments: benefits and perils. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 42(2):120–135. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2015.2467378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. The Eye Tribe eye-tracker: the EyeTribe. https://theeyetribe.com/. Access Jan 2022

  87. Welch BL (1947) The generalization of ‘student’s’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 34(1/2):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/34.1-2.28

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  88. Kitchenham B, Madeyski L, Budgen D, Keung J, Brereton P, Charters S, Gibbs S, Pohthong A (2017) Robust statistical methods for empirical software engineering. Empir Softw Eng 22(2):579–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9437-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Sheskin DJ (2020) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 5th edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  90. Bonferroni C (1936) Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita. Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commericiali di Firenze 8:3–62

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  91. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  92. Games PA, Howell JF (1976) Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal n’s and/or variances: a Monte Carlo study. J Educ Stat 1(2):113–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986001002113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Marcher MH, Christensen IM, Grabarczyk P, Graversen T, Brabrand C (2021) Computing educational activities involving people rather than things appeal more to women (cs1 appeal perspective). In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, pp 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446871.3469761

  94. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Perneger TV (1998) What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 316(7139):1236–1238. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Nakagawa S (2004) A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav Ecol 15(6):1044–1045. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh107

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank NOVA LINCS (UIDB/04516/2020) for the financial support of FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, through national funds. We also thank Carlos Gouveia and Catarina Marques for their insightful improvement suggestions on our manuscript. Last, but not least, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and extremely constructive comments that helped us significantly improving this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NOVA LINCS, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Catarina Gralha, Rita Pereira, Miguel Goulão & João Araujo

Authors
  1. Catarina Gralha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rita Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miguel Goulão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. João Araujo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catarina Gralha.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

All the participants in this study read and agreed to a participant consent form, adapted from [79]. All the data was anonymised. This research work does not have conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gralha, C., Pereira, R., Goulão, M. et al. Assessing user stories: the influence of template differences and gender-related problem-solving styles. Requirements Eng 27, 521–544 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-022-00389-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-022-00389-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation