Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Internal Consistencies of the 1987 SEI Maturity Questionnaire and the SPICE Capability Dimension

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an empirical evaluation of the reliability of two commonly used assessment instruments: the 1987 SEI Maturity Questionnaire and the SPICE v1 capability dimension. The type of reliability that was evaluated is internal consistency. A study of the internal consistency of the 1987 questionnaire was only briefly mentioned in a 1991 article, and the internal consistency of the SPICE v1 capability dimension has not been evaluated thus far. We used two different data sets to evaluate the internal consistency of each instrument. Our results indicate that both assessment instruments are very reliable and also have similar reliability levels. The results are encouraging for users of assessment instruments, and provide a baseline with which to compare subsequent versions of these instruments.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, M., and Yen, W. 1979. Introduction to Measurement Theory. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

  • Barbour, R. 1996. Software capability evaluation version 3.0: Implementation guide for supplier selection. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95–TR-012, Software Engineering Institute.

  • Bollinger, T., and McGowan, C. 1991. A critical look at software capability evaluations. IEEE Software, pages 25–41.

  • Carmines, E. G., and Zeller, R. A. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffman, A., and Thompson, K. 1997. Air force software process improvement report. Crosstalk, pages 25–27.

  • Cronbach, L. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychomterika 16(3): 297–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, B. 1996 The factor structure of the CMM and other latent issues. Paper presented at the Empirical Studies of Programmers: Sixth Workshop, Washington DC.

  • Dekleva, S. 1992. Delphi study of software maintenance problems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, 10–17.

  • Drehmer, D., and Dekleva, S. 1993. Measuring software engineering maturity: A Rasch calibration. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, 191–202.

  • Dunaway, D., and Masters, S. 1996. CMM-based appraisal for internal process improvement (CBA IPI): Method description. Technical Report CMU/SEI-96–TR-7, Software Engineering Institute.

  • El Emam, K., and Goldenson, D. R. 1995. SPICE: An empiricist's perspective. Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Software Engineering Standards Symposium, August, 84–97.

  • El Emam, K., and Madhavji, N. H. 1995. The reliability of measuring organizational maturity. Software Process Improvement and Practice 1(1): 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Emam, K., and Goldenson, D. R. 1996. An empirical evaluation of the prospective international SPICE standard. Software Process Improvement and Practice 2(2): 123–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Emam, K., Goldenson, D. R., Briand, L., and Marshall, P. 1996. Interrater agreement in SPICE-based assessments: Some preliminary results. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Software Process, 149–156.

  • El Emam, K., and Madhavji, N. H. 1996. Does organizational maturity improve quality? IEEE Software, pages 109–110.

  • El Emam, K., and Goldenson, D. R. 1996. Description and evaluation of the SPICE Phase one trials assessments. Proceedings of the International Software Consulting Network Conference (ISCN'96).

  • El Emam, K., Briand, L., and Smith, R. 1997. Assessor agreement in rating SPICE processes. Software Process Improvement and Practice 2(4): 291–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Emam, K., Drouin, J-N, and Melo, W. (eds.) 1998. SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. IEEE CS Press.

  • Humphrey, W., and Sweet, W. 1987. A method for assessing the software engineering capability of contractors. Technical Report CMU/SEI-87–TR-23, Software Engineering Institute.

  • Humphrey, W., and Curtis, B. 1991. Comments on a ‘A Critical Look.’ IEEE Software, pages 42–46.

  • Humphrey, W., Kitson, D., and Gale, J. 1991. A comparison of US and Japanese software process maturity. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering, 38–49.

  • ISO/IEC. 1995. Software Process Assessment-Part 2: A Model for Process Management, Working Draft 1.00.

  • ISO/IEC. 1995. Software Process Assessment-Part 4: Guide to Conducting Assessments, Working Draft 1.00.

  • Lamal, P. 1991. On the importance of replication. In J. Neuliep (ed.), Replication Research in the Social Sciences. Sage Publications.

  • Maclennan, F., and Ostrolenk, G. 1995. The SPICE trials: Validating the framework. Proceedings of the 2nd International SPICE Symposium, Brisbane, Australia.

  • Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, T., Humphrey, W., and Kitson, D. 1989. Conducting SEI-assisted software process assessments. Technical Report CMU/SEI-89–TR-7, Software Engineering Institute.

  • Paulk, M., and Konrad, M. 1994. Measuring process capability versus organizational maturity. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software Quality.

  • Rout, T. 1995. SPICE: A framework for software process assessment. Software Process Improvement and Practice, Pilot Issue, 57–66.

  • Rugg, D. 1993. Using a capability evaluation to select a contractor. IEEE Software, pages 36–45.

  • Saiedian, H., and Kuzara, R. 1995. SEI capability maturity model's impact on contractors. Computer 28(1): 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEI. 1996. Process maturity profile of the software community: 1996 update. Software Engineering Institute.

  • Tan, M., and Yap, C. 1995. Impact of organizational maturity on software quality. In M. Lee, B-Z Barta, and P. Juliff (eds.), Software Quality and Productivity: Theory, Practice, Education and Training. Chapman & Hall.

  • Topper, A., and Jorgensen, P. More than one way to measure process maturity. IEEE Software, pages 9–10.

  • Whitney, R., Nawrocki, E., Hayes, W., and Siegel, J. 1994. Interim profile: Development and trial of a method to rapidly measure software engineering maturity status. Technical Report CMU/SEI-94–TR-4, Software Engineering Institute.

  • Zubrow, D., Hayes, W., Siegel, J., and Goldenson, D. 1994. Maturity questionnaire. Technical Report CMU/SEI-94–SR-7, Software Engineering Institute.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering, Sauerwiesen 6, D-67661, Kaiserslautern, Germany

    Pierfrancesco Fusaro & Khaled El Emam

  2. European Software Institute, Parque Tecnologico de Zamudio 204, E-48170, Bilbao, Spain

    Bob Smith

Authors
  1. Pierfrancesco Fusaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khaled El Emam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bob Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fusaro, P., Emam, K.E. & Smith, B. The Internal Consistencies of the 1987 SEI Maturity Questionnaire and the SPICE Capability Dimension. Empirical Software Engineering 3, 179–201 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008036316053

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008036316053

Search

Navigation