Difficulties in Object-Oriented Design and its relationship with Abstraction: A Systematic Review of Literature
Authors: 
Pamela Catherine Flores, Ismael Sebastian Rivas, Jenny Gabriela TorresAuthors Info & Claims
Pamela Catherine Flores, Ismael Sebastian Rivas, Jenny Gabriela TorresAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 1 - 13
Abstract
Object-oriented approach represents a different way of thinking about software development in terms of modularity and abstraction of concepts through the modeling of system components. Within this context, it is essential to address the challenges encountered by students and novices, who often struggle with fundamental object-oriented design concepts. Specifically, from a cognitive point of view, a notable deficiency lies in their grasp of abstraction—a fundamental cognitive pillar that supports software design. There is an evident need to refine research efforts to correct the lack of knowledge revealed by these difficulties in software design, specifically, those related to abstraction. To rectify this knowledge gap, it has been carried out a literature review through qualitative research that is based on the Kitchenham methodology. This study is dedicated to understanding and mitigating the difficulties that novice designers encounter when modeling software systems, with a particular focus on the concept of abstraction. Our research efforts led to the classification of difficulties in software design, as gleaned from the existing literature. Furthermore, we sought to elucidate the varying levels of abstraction perceived by different authors in this context. Among the identified challenges are students’ limited perception of classes as real-world entities, the transition from structural to object-oriented programming paradigms, and the navigation across different levels of abstraction. This study contributes to the field by shedding light on the specific challenges faced by novices in the realm of object-oriented design, with a particular emphasis on the critical aspect of abstraction.
References
[1]
D Aharoni and U Leron. 1997. Abstraction is hard in computer-science too. In PME CONFERENCE, Vol. 3. THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE OF THE 18TH PME CONFERENCE, Lahti, Finland, 2–9.
[2]
S. Akayama, Birgit Demuth, Timothy Lethbridge, M. Scholz, P. Stevens, and Dave Stikkolorum. 2013. Tool use in software modelling education. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 1134 (01 2013), 22 pages.
[3]
Giora Alexandron, Michal Armoni, Michal Gordon, and David Harel. 2012. The Effect of Previous Programming Experience on the Learning of Scenario-Based Programming. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1145/2401796.2401821
[4]
Giora Alexandron, Michal Armoni, Michal Gordon, and David Harel. 2014. Scenario-Based Programming: Reducing the Cognitive Load, Fostering Abstract Thinking. In Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (Hyderabad, India) (ICSE Companion 2014). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591062.2591167
[5]
Sohail Alhazmi, Charles Thevathayan, and Margaret Hamilton. 2021. Learning UML Sequence Diagrams with a New Constructivist Pedagogical Tool: SD4ED. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Virtual Event, USA) (SIGCSE ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 893–899. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432521
[6]
Harith Aljumaily, Dolores Cuadra, and Debra F. Laefer. 2019. An empirical study to evaluate students’ conceptual modeling skills using UML. Computer Science Education 29, 4 (2019), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1642699 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1642699
[7]
Nuno Amálio. 2006. Generative frameworks for rigorous model-driven development. Citeseer, New York.
[8]
Nuno Amálio and Fiona Polack. 2003. Comparison of Formalisation Approaches of UML Class Constructs in Z and Object-Z. In ZB 2003: Formal Specification and Development in Z and B, Didier Bert, Jonathan P. Bowen, Steve King, and Marina Waldén (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 339–358.
[9]
Jens Bennedssen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2008. Abstraction Ability as an Indicator of Success for Learning Computing Science?. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (Sydney, Australia) (ICER ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404523
[10]
Susan Bergin and Ronan Reilly. 2005. The influence of motivation and comfort-level on learning to program. In Proceedings of the 17th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, PPIG 05. University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, June 2005.Psychology of Programming Interest Group, 293–304. https://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/8685/
[11]
R Botting and J. 2000. Active Learning Object-Oriented Design and Analysis. Workshop on Active Learning for Object-Oriented Design (jan 2000), 3 pages. http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/research/design1/2000/papers/rotting.htm
[12]
Jonas Boustedt. 2012. Students’ different understandings of class diagrams. Computer Science Education 22, 1 (2012), 29–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2012.665210 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2012.665210
[13]
Françoise Détienne. 1990. Difficulties in Designing with an Object-Oriented Language: An Empirical Study. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 Third Interational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction(INTERACT ’90). North-Holland Publishing Co., NLD, 971–976.
[14]
Keith Devlin. 2003. Session Details: Why Universities Require Computer Science Students to Take Math. Commun. ACM 46, 9 (Sept. 2003). https://doi.org/10.1145/3262533
[15]
Françoise Détienne. 1997. Assessing the cognitive consequences of the object-oriented approach: A survey of empirical research on object-oriented design by individuals and teams. Interacting with Computers 9, 1 (1997), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(97)00006-4
[16]
A. Ebrahimi and C. Schweikert. 2006. Empirical Study of Novice Programming with Plans and Objects. In Working Group Reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Bologna, Italy) (ITiCSE-WGR ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1189215.1189169
[17]
Anna Eckerdal, Robert McCartney, Jan Erik Moström, Mark Ratcliffe, and Carol Zander. 2006. Can Graduating Students Design Software Systems?SIGCSE Bull. 38, 1 (March 2006), 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124706.1121468
[18]
Anna Eckerdal and Michael Thuné. 2005. Novice Java Programmers’ Conceptions of "Object" and "Class", and Variation Theory. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Caparica, Portugal) (ITiCSE ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1145/1067445.1067473
[19]
Ann E. Fleury. 2001. Encapsualtion and Reuse as Viewed by Java Students. SIGCSE Bull. 33, 1 (Feb. 2001), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1145/366413.364582
[20]
Pamela Flores, Nelson Medinilla Martínez, and Sonia Pamplona Roche. 2016. Persistent ideas in a software design course: a qualitative case study. The International journal of engineering education 32, 2 (2016), 937–947.
[21]
Pamela Flores, Nelson Medinilla, and Sonia Pamplona. 2014. What Do Software Design Students Understand About Information Hiding?: A Qualitative Case Study. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/2674683.2674697
[22]
Pamela Flores, Jenny Torres, and Rigoberto Fonseca-Delgado. 2019. Design Decisions under Object-Oriented Approach: A Thematic Analysis from the Abstraction Point of View. In Proceedings of the 8th Computer Science Education Research Conference (Larnaca, Cyprus) (CSERC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375258.3375269
[23]
Stephen Frezza and Wayne Andersen. 2006. Interactive exercises to support effective learning of UML structural modeling. In Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference. IEEE, 7–12.
[24]
Susanne Friese. 2023. ATLAS.ti. https://atlasti.com/atlas-ti-desktop
[25]
Tony Gorschek, Ewan Tempero, and Lefteris Angelis. 2010. A large-scale empirical study of practitioners’ use of object-oriented concepts. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1. 115–124.
[26]
Irit Hadar. 2013. When intuition and logic clash: The case of the object-oriented paradigm. Science of Computer Programming 78, 9 (2013), 1407–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2012.10.006
[27]
Said Hadjerrouit. 1998. Java as First Programming Language: A Critical Evaluation. SIGCSE Bull. 30, 2 (June 1998), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1145/292422.292440
[28]
Orit Hazzan. 2002. The reflective practitioner perspective in software engineering education. Journal of Systems and Software 63, 3 (2002), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(02)00012-2
[29]
B. Henderson-Sellers and F. Barbier. 1999. What is this thing called aggregation?. In Proceedings Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems. TOOLS 29 (Cat. No.PR00275). IEEE, Nancy, France, 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOOLS.1999.779016
[30]
Simon Holland, Robert Griffiths, and Mark Woodman. 1997. Avoiding Object Misconceptions. SIGCSE Bull. 29, 1 (March 1997), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1145/268085.268132
[31]
Peter Hubwieser and Andreas Mühling. 2011. What students (should) know about object oriented programming. In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education research. 77–84.
[32]
Janet T. Jenkins, James A. Jerkins, and Cynthia L. Stenger. 2012. A Plan for Immediate Immersion of Computational Thinking into the High School Math Classroom through a Partnership with the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Southeast Regional Conference (Tuscaloosa, Alabama) (ACM-SE ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1145/2184512.2184547
[33]
Amela Karahasanović, Annette Kristin Levine, and Richard Thomas. 2007. Comprehension strategies and difficulties in maintaining object-oriented systems: An explorative study. Journal of Systems and Software 80, 9 (2007), 1541 – 1559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.10.041 Evaluation and Assessment in Software EngineeringEASE06.
[34]
Mizue Kayama, Shinpei Ogata, Kento Masymoto, Masami Hashimoto, and Makoto Otani. 2014. A practical conceptual modeling teaching method based on quantitative error analyses for novices learning to create error-free simple class diagrams. In 2014 IIAI 3rd International Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics. IEEE, 616–622.
[35]
Staffs Keele 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report. Citeseer.
[36]
Päivi Kinnunen, Robert McCartney, Laurie Murphy, and Lynda Thomas. 2007. Through the Eyes of Instructors: A Phenomenographic Investigation of Student Success. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (ICER ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/1288580.1288589
[37]
Barbara Kitchenham. 2004. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University 33, 2004 (2004), 1–26.
[38]
Michael Kölling. 1999. The Problem of Teaching Object-Oriented Programming, Part 1: Languages. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 11, 8 (January 1999), 8–15. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/21879/
[39]
Jeff Kramer. 2007. Is Abstraction the Key to Computing?Commun. ACM 50, 4 (April 2007), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/1232743.1232745
[40]
Timothy C. Lethbridge. 2014. Teaching modeling using Umple: Principles for the development of an effective tool. In 2014 IEEE 27th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE T). 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET.2014.6816777
[41]
Zhiyi Ma. 2017. An approach to improve the quality of object-oriented models from novice modelers through project practice. Frontiers of Computer Science 11, 3 (2017), 485–498.
[42]
Robert Cecil Martin. 2003. Agile software development: principles, patterns, and practices. Prentice Hall PTR.
[43]
Soly Mathew Biju. 2013. Difficulties in Understanding Object Oriented Programming Concepts. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 152 (08 2013), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3535-8_27
[44]
D.L. Moody, G. Sindre, T. Brasethvik, and A. Solvberg. 2003. Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework. In 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings.295–305. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2003.1201209
[45]
Oliver Moravcik, Daniel Petrik, T. Skripcak, and Peter Schreiber. 2012. Elements of the Modern Application Software Development. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering (01 2012), 891–896. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJCTE.2012.V4.601
[46]
Jan Erik Moström, Jonas Boustedt, Anna Eckerdal, Robert McCartney, Kate Sanders, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2008. Concrete Examples of Abstraction as Manifested in Students’ Transformative Experiences. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (Sydney, Australia) (ICER ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404533
[47]
Palle Nowack and Michael E. Caspersen. 2014. Model-Based Thinking and Practice: A Top-down Approach to Computational Thinking. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1145/2674683.2674686
[48]
A.L. Opdahl, B. Henderson-Sellers, and F. Barbier. 2001. Ontological analysis of whole–part relationships in OO-models. Information and Software Technology 43, 6 (2001), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5849(00)00175-0
[49]
Andreas L. Opdahl and Brian Henderson-Sellers. 2005. A Unified Modelling Language without Referential Redundancy. Data Knowl. Eng. 55, 3 (Dec. 2005), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2004.12.007
[50]
Rachel Or-Bach and Ilana Lavy. 2004. Cognitive Activities of Abstraction in Object Orientation: An Empirical Study. SIGCSE Bull. 36, 2 (June 2004), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1145/1024338.1024378
[51]
David Parnas. 1972. On the Criteria to Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Commun. ACM 15, 12 (Dec. 1972), 1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1145/361598.361623
[52]
David Parnas. 2002. The secret history of information hiding. In Software pioneers. Springer, 398–409.
[53]
Nelishia Pillay. 2009. A Study of Object-Oriented Design Errors Made by Novice Programmers. In Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference of the Southern African Computer Lecturers’ Association (Eastern Cape, South Africa) (SACLA ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 101–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/1562741.1562754
[54]
Prajish Prasad and Sridhar Iyer. 2020. How Do Graduating Students Evaluate Software Design Diagrams?. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Virtual Event, New Zealand) (ICER ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3406271
[55]
Jake A. Qualls, Michael M. Grant, and Linda B. Sherrell. 2011. CS1 Students’ Understanding of Computational Thinking Concepts. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 26, 5 (May 2011), 62–71.
[56]
Kate Sanders, Jonas Boustedt, Anna Eckerdal, Robert McCartney, Jan Erik Moström, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2008. Student Understanding of Object-Oriented Programming as Expressed in Concept Maps. SIGCSE Bull. 40, 1 (March 2008), 332–336. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352322.1352251
[57]
Kate Sanders and Robert McCartney. 2016. Threshold Concepts in Computing: Past, Present, and Future. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999546
[58]
Kate Sanders and Lynda Thomas. 2007. Checklists for Grading Object-Oriented CS1 Programs: Concepts and Misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Dundee, Scotland) (ITiCSE ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 166–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/1268784.1268834
[59]
Steven Sheetz. 2002. Identifying the Difficulties of Object-oriented Development. J. Syst. Softw. 64, 1 (Oct. 2002), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(02)00019-5
[60]
Keng Siau and Poi-Peng Loo. 2006. Identifying Difficulties in Learning Uml. Information Systems Management 23, 3 (2006), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1201/1078.10580530/46108.23.3.20060601/93706.5 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1201/1078.10580530/46108.23.3.20060601/93706.5
[61]
Ven Sien. 2011. An investigation of difficulties experienced by students developing unified modelling language (UML) class and sequence diagrams. Computer Science Education 21 (12 2011), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.630127
[62]
Williamson Silva, Igor Steinmacher, and Tayana Conte. 2019. Students’ and instructors’ perceptions of five different active learning strategies used to teach software modeling. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 184063–184077.
[63]
Williamson Alison Freitas Silva, Igor Fabio Steinmacher, and Tayana Uchôa Conte. 2017. Is it better to learn from problems or erroneous examples?. In 2017 IEEE 30th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T). IEEE, 222–231.
[64]
Herbert Simon. 1962. The Architecture of Complexity. In Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 467–482.
[65]
Ian Somerville. 2007. Software engineering, eight edition.
[66]
D. R. Stikkolorum, F. Gomes de Oliveira Neto, and M. R. V. Chaudron. 2018. Evaluating Didactic Approaches Used by Teaching Assistants for Software Analysis and Design Using UML. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference of Software Engineering Education (Seeon/ Bavaria, Germany) (ECSEE’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209087.3209107
[67]
D. Svetinovic, D.M. Berry, and M. Godfrey. 2005. Concept identification in object-oriented domain analysis: why some students just don’t get it. In 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE’05). 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2005.17
[68]
Robert Szmurło and Michał Śmiałek. 2006. Teaching Software Modeling in a Simulated Project Environment. In Models in Software Engineering, Thomas Kühne (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 301–310.
[69]
Khalid Tahat. 2014. An Innovative Instructional Method for Teaching Object-Oriented Modelling. International Arab Journal of Information Technology 11 (11 2014).
[70]
David Tegarden and Steven Sheetz. 2001. Cognitive activities in OO development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 54, 6 (2001), 779–798.
[71]
Ewan Tempero, Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Ralph. 2018. Objects Count so Count Objects!. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Espoo, Finland) (ICER ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3230985
[72]
Benjy Thomasson, Mark Ratcliffe, and Lynda Thomas. 2006. Identifying Novice Difficulties in Object Oriented Design. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Bologna, Italy) (ITICSE ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/1140124.1140135
[73]
Scott A. Turner, Ricardo Quintana-Castillo, Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones, and Stephen H. Edwards. 2008. Misunderstandings about Object-Oriented Design: Experiences Using Code Reviews. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352169
[74]
Murat Pasa Uysal. 2016. In Search of Software Engineering Foundations: A Theoretical and Trans-disciplinary Perspective. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering 8 (08 2016), 328–332. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJCTE.2016.V8.1066
[75]
Jeannette Wing. 2006. Computational Thinking. Commun. ACM 49 (03 2006), 33–35.
[76]
Rebecca J Wirfs-Brock. 2009. Principles in Practice. IEEE Software 26, 4 (2009), 11–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2009.99
[77]
Stelios Xinogalos. 2015. Object-Oriented Design and Programming: An Investigation of Novices’ Conceptions on Objects and Classes. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 15, 3, Article 13 (July 2015), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2700519
[78]
S. Xinogalos, M. Sartatzemi, V. Dagdilelis, and G. Evangelidis. 2006. Teaching OOP with BlueJ: A Case Study. In Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’06). 944–946. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2006.1652599
[79]
Lu Yan. 2009. Teaching Object-Oriented Programming with Games. In 2009 Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations. 969–974. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITNG.2009.13
Index Terms
- Difficulties in Object-Oriented Design and its relationship with Abstraction: A Systematic Review of Literature
Recommendations
Design decisions under object-oriented approach: A thematic analysis from the abstraction point of view
CSERC '19: Proceedings of the 8th Computer Science Education Research ConferenceMany authors consider abstraction as one of the key principles in objected-oriented approach, but the ability to abstract is very difficult to achieve. Specifically, during the software design stage, abstraction allows in a software architecture ...
Identifying novice difficulties in object oriented design
We report on a study of novice programmers' object oriented class designs. These designs were analysed to discover what faults they displayed. The two most common faults related to non-referenced classes (inability to integrate them into the solution), ...
Object-oriented robot programming
The paper presents an object-oriented approach to the implementation of a software library (MRROC+) which contains building blocks for the construction of multi-robot system controllers tailored to meet specific demands of a task at hand. Moreover, the ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
December 2023
116 pages
ISBN:9798400708817
DOI:10.1145/3651640
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 02 July 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
ESSE 2023
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 41Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)41
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format