An eye tracking experiment investigating synonymy in conceptual model validation

•Class names that identically match business rules improve multiplicity validation.•Business rules stated in same order as model layout improve multiplicity validation.•Synonyms in business rules and UML class diagrams decrease validation accuracy.•Synonyms in business rules and class diagrams incre...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of accounting information systems 2022-12, Vol.47, p.100578, Article 100578
Hauptverfasser: Boot, Walter R., Dunn, Cheryl L., Fulmer, Bachman P., Gerard, Gregory J., Grabski, Severin V.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Class names that identically match business rules improve multiplicity validation.•Business rules stated in same order as model layout improve multiplicity validation.•Synonyms in business rules and UML class diagrams decrease validation accuracy.•Synonyms in business rules and class diagrams increase cognitive burden in validation.•Validators evaluate UML class diagram minimum and maximum multiplicities equally well. A key advantage of conceptual models is that their quality can be evaluated and validated before beginning the costlier stages of information system development. Few research studies investigate the validation process for such models, particularly regarding multiplicities, even though multiplicity mistakes can be very costly. We investigated the validation of conceptual model multiplicities, varying how closely natural language statements of business rules match the models that purport to represent those rules. Participants in an eye tracking experiment completed validation tasks in which they viewed a statement and an accompanying UML class diagram in which a specified multiplicity was consistent with the statement (valid) or inconsistent with the statement (invalid). We varied whether the focal multiplicity was a minimum or a maximum and varied the class diagram’s semantics and order compared to that of the statement. Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between accuracy and the experimental manipulations and controls. The results show that the odds of accuracy in validating class diagrams that used synonyms instead of the exact statement terminology were only 0.46 times the odds of accuracy when the class diagram and statement words matched, showing a costly effect of synonymy. Interestingly, independent of the three levels of relative semantics, the odds of accuracy were 0.48 times when class diagrams were consistent with business rules as they were when class diagrams were inconsistent with business rules. To gain insight into cognition under correct task performance, we conducted additional linear regression analysis on various eye tracking metrics for only the accurate responses. Again, synonymy was observed to be costly, with a cognitive burden of increased integrative transitions between statement and model in the range of 39 to 66%.
ISSN:1467-0895
1873-4723
DOI:10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100578