A survey regarding the costs of Testing

SEEE DIGIBOOK ON ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 01 (2), JUN 2020 PP. (1023-1030)
Abstract– In the process of developing software, the step known as testing is typically considered to be the step that requires the most investment overall, both in terms of time and financial resources. In an effort to reduce their overall costs, a number of businesses have made the decision not to automate their testing procedures. Other businesses have gone so far as to completely do away with these procedures altogether. Nevertheless, the costs of conducting automated, manual, or even no tests at all can vary greatly and are typically difficult to differentiate between one another. There is also the possibility of not carrying out any tests at all. There is also the possibility of not carrying out any kind of examinations at all. An estimate of the cost of using automated testing can be formulated with the help of metrics, which can be used in this context. On the other hand, there has been no research conducted into the cost metrics associated with manual testing or with not testing at all. This study provides a statistic that is encouraging for the use of automated tests, and it also suggests two additional metrics that can be applied in the remaining two different scenarios. An example will be used to demonstrate how the metrics can be utilized in practical settings and circumstances. When these data are made available, it will be easy to carry out a precise comparison of the three distinct testing procedures. In addition, there is the possibility of having a discussion about the expense of testing and determining whether or not it is reasonable to skip testing. This document includes both subject-related descriptors and classifications in addition to its already extensive list of terms.
Index Terms – automated testing, manual testing, test costs, cost estimation, and performance metrics.
REFERENCE

Greenlaw, C., & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Evaluation review, 33(5), 464-480.
Usaola, M. P., & Mateo, P. R. (2010). Mutation testing cost reduction techniques: a survey. IEEE software, 27(3), 80-86.
Grosse, S. D., Wordsworth, S., & Payne, K. (2008). Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genetics in Medicine, 10(9), 648-654.
Pizzoleto, A. V., Ferrari, F. C., Offutt, J., Fernandes, L., & Ribeiro, M. (2019). A systematic literature review of techniques and metrics to reduce the cost of mutation testing. Journal of Systems and Software, 157, 110388.
Wordsworth, S., Leal, J., Blair, E., Legood, R., Thomson, K., Seller, A., … & Watkins, H. (2010). DNA testing for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a cost-effectiveness model. European heart journal, 31(8), 926-935
Faul, M., Wald, M. M., Rutland-Brown, W., Sullivent, E. E., & Sattin, R. W. (2007). Using a cost- benefit analysis to estimate outcomes of a clinical treatment guideline: testing the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 63(6), 1271-1278.
Pliakos, E. E., Andreatos, N., Shehadeh, F., Ziakas, P. D., & Mylonakis, E. (2018). The cost-effectiveness of rapid diagnostic testing for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections with or without antimicrobial stewardship. Clinical microbiology reviews, 31(3), e00095-17.
Bauer, E. A. (1992). NATD survey of testing practices and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice.
Sousa-Pinto, B., Blumenthal, K. G., Macy, E., Bavbek, S., Benić, M. S., Alves-Correia, M., … & Fonseca, J. A. (2020). Diagnostic testing for penicillin allergy: a survey of practices and cost perceptions. Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 75(2), 436-441.
Willis, C. Y., & Leighton, C. (1995). Protecting the poor under cost recovery: the role of means testing. Health policy and planning, 10(3), 241-256.
Hornberger, J., Li, Q., & Quinn, B. (2015). Cost- effectiveness of combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder patients. Am J Manag Care, 21(6), e357-65.
Ferrari, F. C., Pizzoleto, A. V., & Offutt, J. (2018, April). A systematic review of cost reduction techniques for mutation testing: preliminary results. In 2018 IEEE international conference on software testing, verification and validation workshops (ICSTW) (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
Hortin, G. L., & Carter, A. B. (2002). Intraoperative parathyroid hormone testing: survey of testing program characteristics. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine, 126(9), 1045-1049.
Wittkowsky, A. K., Sekreta, C. M., Nutescu, E. A., & Ansell, J. (2005). Barriers to patient self-testing of prothrombin time: national survey of anticoagulation practitioners. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 25(2), 265-269.
Herbst de Cortina, S., Bristow, C. C., Joseph Davey, D., & Klausner, J. D. (2016). A systematic review of point of care testing for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology, 2016.
Gutierres, S. L., & Welty, T. E. (2004). Point-of-care testing: an introduction. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 38(1), 119-125.
Crown, D. F., & Rosse, J. G. (1988). A critical review of the assumptions underlying drug testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3(1), 22-41.

V. Sreenivasalu Manda, M Pavithra
Department of Information Technology,
Rathinam Technical Campus, Coimbatore, India

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top