Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of personality type on structured tool comprehension performance

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

Abstract

Accurate understanding of software requirements by end users and software developers is important to ensure a high quality software product. While comprehension performance on systems analysis tools has been studied in the past, there is little research that examined the influence of personality type of an individual on his/her performance. This paper has two objectives. First, the research uncovers the relationships between personality types (introvert/extrovert, sensing/intuitive, feeling/thinking, and perceptive/judging) and comprehension performance (accuracy and speed) of users/developers using the structured tools: Decision Tables (DT), Nassi–Schneiderman Charts (NS) and Structured English (SE). Second, it examines the trade-offs between comprehension accuracy and speed for each personality type. Using laboratory experiments, we measured individual performance with the three structured tools. We found that introverts and feeling personalities comprehended more accurately with DT; thinking and intuitive personalities comprehended more accurately with NS and SE. The comprehension accuracy increased with time more for SE than for DT and NS. The results show the most suitable combinations of structured tools and personality types for high comprehension. The results also provide guidelines to managers with tight project schedules, such as structured tools that are easier/faster to understand and the matching personalities who can comprehend faster.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Burton-Jones A, Meso PN (2006) Conceptualizing systems for understanding: an empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Inform Syst Res 17(1):38–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Capretz LF (2003) Personality types in software engineering. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58(2):207–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chilton MA, Hardgrave BC, Armstrong DJ (2005) Person-job cognitive style fit for software developers: the effect on strain and performance. J Manage Inform Syst 22(2):193–226

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cornelissen B, Zaidman A, van Zaidman A, van Deursen A, Moonen L, Koschke R (2009) A systematic survey of program comprehension through dynamic analysis. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35(5):684–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Davies I, Green P, Rosemann M, Indulska M, Gallo S (2005) How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl Eng 58(3):358–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gorla N, Lam YW (2004) Who should work with whom? Building effective software project teams. Commun ACM 47(6):79–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gorla N, Pu H-C, Rom WO (1995) Evaluation of process tools in systems analysis. Inf Softw Technol 37(2):119–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hungerford BC, Hevner AR, Collins RW (2004) Reviewing software diagrams: a cognitive study. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(2):82–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Huysmans J, Dejaeger K, Mues C, Vanthienen J, Baesens B (2011) An empirical evaluation of the comprehensibility of decision table, tree and rule based predictive models. Decis Support Syst 51:141–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Keirsey D, Bates M (1984) Please understand me: character and temperament types. Gnosology Books, Prometheus Nemesis. Del Mar

  11. Khatri V, Ram S, Snodgrass RT (2004) Augmenting a conceptual model with geospatiotemporal annotations. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 16(11):1324–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lohse GL, Biolsi K, Walker N, Rueter HH (1994) A Classification of visual representations. Commun ACM 37(12):36–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McDonald S, Edwards HM (2007) Who should test whom? Commun ACM 50(1):67–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McElroy J, Hendrickson AR, Townsend AM, DeMarie SM (2007) Dispositional factors in internet use: personality versus cognitive style. MIS Q 31(4):809–820

    Google Scholar 

  15. Miller J, Yin Z (2004) A cognitive-based mechanism for constructing software inspection teams. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(11):811–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Myers IB, McCaully MH (1985) Manual: a guide to the development and use of Myers-Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  17. Santos-Gomez L, Darnell M (1992) Empirical evaluation of decision tables for constructing and comprehending expert systems. Knowl Acquis 4(4):427–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Scanlan DA (1989) Structured flowcharts outperform pseudocode: an experimental comparison. IEEE Software: 28–36

  19. Shaft TM, Vessey I (2006) The role of cognitive fit in the relationship between software comprehension and modification. MIS Q 30(1):29–55

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sinha AP, Vessey I (1992) Cognitive fit: an empirical study of recursion and iteration. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 18(2):368–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vessey I, Weber R (1986) Structured tools and conditional logic: an empirical investigation. Commun ACM 29(1):48–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their highly valuable and clear comments, which have made the paper a better one.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICFAI Business School, Hyderabad, India

    Narasimhaiah Gorla

  2. Faculty of Business and Economics, UAE University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

    Ananth Chiravuri

  3. Georgia State University, Robinson College of Business, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Peter Meso

Authors
  1. Narasimhaiah Gorla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ananth Chiravuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Meso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Narasimhaiah Gorla.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Fig. 6.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Structured tool representations (task adapted from Vessey and Weber [21])

Full size image

Appendix 2: Questions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gorla, N., Chiravuri, A. & Meso, P. Effect of personality type on structured tool comprehension performance. Requirements Eng 18, 281–292 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-012-0158-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-012-0158-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation