Research Methodology

5. Systematic Literature
Review (SLR)

1
Course Outline

1. Pengantar Penelitian

2. Tahapan Penelitian

3. Literature Review

4. Penulisan Ilmiah dan Publikasi Penelitian

5. Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

6. Pembimbingan dan Presentasi Penelitian

2
5. Systematic Literature Review
(SLR)
5.1 Pengantar SLR
5.2 Tahapan Planning
5.3 Tahapan Conducting
5.4 Tahapan Reporting

3
5.1 Pengantar SLR

4
Literature Review
• Literature Review is a critical and in depth
evaluation of previous research (Shuttleworth, 2009)
(https://explorable.com/what-is-a-literature-review)

• A summary and synopsis of a particular area

of research, allowing anybody reading the
paper to establish the reasons for pursuing a
particular research
• A good Literature Review evaluates quality
and findings of previous research

5
Why doing Literature Review?
• To establish connection or relationship
between existing knowledge and the
problem to be solved
• To refine the research problem
• To identify significance of research
• To define research question

6
Laporan Literature Review
• Hasil laporan dari proses Literature Review biasanya
diletakkan di Bab 2 pada skripsi/tesis/disertasi kita
• Cara konvensional menyusun laporan Literature Review
adalah dengan menyusun bab 2 dengan tiga hal berikut:
1. Tinjauan Studi:
• Berisi tentang penelitian-penelitian yang berhubungan erat
(related research) dengan penelitian kita. Gunakan diagram yang
menggambarkan metode yang diusulkan oleh peneliti lain
• Harus bisa menggambarkan posisi penelitian kita, apa bedanya
penelitian kita dengan penelitian sebelumnya
2. Tinjauan Pustaka:
• Berisi landasan teori dari berbagai terminologi yang muncul pada
judul dan abstrak penelitian kita
• Apabila menjelaskan tentang algoritma, harus dijelaskan tentang
tahapan algoritma secara detail
3. Kerangka Pemikiran:
• Berisi kerangka atau framework dari penelitian yang kita lakukan
• Memuat gambaran besar untuk menjelaskan alur dan kerangka
pemikiran penelitian kita secara umum
7
Types of Literature Review
1. Traditional Review
2. Systematic Literature Review or Systematic
Review
3. Systematic Mapping Study (Scoping Study)
4. Tertiary Study

(Kitchenham & Charters, Guidelines in performing Systematic Literature

Reviews in Software Engineering, EBSE Technical Report version 2.3, 2007)

8
Traditional Review
• Provides an overview of the research
findings on particular topics
• Advantages: produce insightful, valid
syntheses of the research literature if
conducted by the expert
• Disadvantages: vulnerable to unintentional
and intentional bias in the selection,
interpretation and organization of content

9
Contoh Traditional Review
• Liao et al., Intrusion Detection System: A
Comprehensive Review, Journal of Network and
Computer Applications, 36(2013)
• Galar et al., A Review on Ensembles for the Class
Imbalance Problem: Bagging-, Boosting-, and
Hybrid-Based Approaches, IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications
and Reviews), Vol. 42, No. 4, July 2012
• Cagatay Catal, Software fault prediction: A
literature review and current trends, Expert
Systems with Applications 38 (2011)

10
Systematic Mapping Study
• Suitable for a very broad topic
• Identify clusters of evidence (making
classification)
• Direct the focus of future SLRs
• To identify areas for future primary studies

11
Contoh Systematic Mapping Study
• Neto et al., A systematic mapping study of software
product lines testing, Information and Software
Technology Vol. 53, Issue 5, May 2011
• Elberzhager et al., Reducing test effort: A
systematic mapping study on existing approaches,
Information and Software Technology 54 (2012)

12
Tertiary study
•Is a SLR of SLRs
•To answer a more wider question
•Uses the same method as in SLR
•Potentially less resource intensive

13
Contoh Tertiary study
• Kitchenham et al., Systematic literature reviews in
software engineering – A tertiary study,
Information and Software Technology 52 (2010)
• Cruzes et al., Research synthesis in software
engineering: A tertiary study, Information and
Software Technology 53 (2011)

14
Systematic Literature Review (SLR)
• A process of identifying, assessing, and interpreting
all available research evidence, to provide answers
for a particular research question
• A form of secondary study that uses a well-defined
methodology
• SLRs are well established in other disciplines,
particularly medicine. They integrate an individual
clinical expertise and facilitate access to the
outcomes of the research

(Kitchenham & Charters, Guidelines in performing Systematic Literature

Reviews in Software Engineering, EBSE Technical Report version 2.3, 2007)

15
Systematic Literature Review (SLR)
• The purpose of a systematic literature reviews is
to provide as complete a list as possible of all
the published and unpublished studies relating
to a particular subject area
• While traditional reviews attempt to summarize
results of a number of studies, systematic
literature reviews use explicit and rigorous
criteria to identify, critically evaluate and
synthesize all the literature on a particular topic

(Cronin et al., Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach,

British Journal of Nursing, 2008, Vol 17, No 1, 2008)
16
Contoh Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

• Hall et al., A Systematic Literature Review on Fault

Prediction Performance in Software Engineering,
IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, Vol. 38,
No. 6, 2012
• Wen et al., Systematic literature review of machine
learning based software development effort
estimation models, Information and Software
Technology 54 (2012)
• Radjenovic et al., Software fault prediction metrics:
A systematic literature review, Information and
Software Technology 55 (2013) 1397–1418
Contents

17
Tahapan SLR
1. Formulate the review’s research question
PLANNING
2. Develop the review’s protocol

1. Identify the relevant literature

2. Perform selection of primary studies
3. Perform data extraction CONDUCTING
4. Assess studies’ quality
5. Conduct synthesis of evidence

Write up the SLR report/paper REPORTING

18
5.2 Tahapan Planning

1. Formulate the review’s research question

2. Develop the review’s protocol

19
The Research Question (RQ)
• Is the most important part in any SLR
• Is not necessarily the same as questions
addressed in your research
• Is used to guide the search process
• Is used to guide the extraction process
• Data analysis (synthesis of evidence) is
expected to answer your SLR’s RQ

20
Formulation of RQ
• Features of good question:
• The RQ is meaningful and important to practitioners and
researchers.
• The RQ will lead to changes in current software
engineering practice or to increase confidence in the value
of current practice
• The RQ will identify discrepancies between commonly held
beliefs and the reality
• RQ can be derived primarily based on researcher’s
interest
• An SLR for PhD thesis should identify existing basis for the
research work and where it fits in the current body of
knowledge
21
Formulation of RQ
The formulation of RQs about effectiveness of a
treatment should focus on 5 elements known as PICOC:
▪ Population (P) - the target group for the investigation (e.g.
people, software etc.)
▪ Intervention (I) - specifies the investigation aspects or issues
of interest to the researchers
▪ Comparison (C)– aspect of the investigation with which the
intervention is being compared to
▪ Outcomes (O)– the effect of the intervention
▪ Context (C)– the setting or environment of the investigation

(Petticrew et al., Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide,

Blackwell Publishing, 2006)
22
 Example of PICOC (Kitchenham et al., 2007)
Kitchenham et al., A Systematic Review of Cross- vs. Within-
Company Cost Estimation Studies, IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, 33 (5), 2007

Population: Software or web project

Intervention: Cross-company project effort estimation
model
Comparison: Single-company project effort estimation
model
Outcomes: Prediction or estimate accuracy
Context: None
23
 Example of PICOC (Salleh et al., 2011)
Salleh et al., Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE
teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review.
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(4), 2011

Population: CS/SE students in higher education

Intervention: Pair programming
Comparison: N/A
Outcomes: Pair Programming’s effectiveness
Context: Review(s) of all empirical studies of PP within
the domain of CS/SE in higher education
24
Example of RQs
Kitchenham et al., A Systematic Review of Cross- vs. Within-
Company Cost Estimation Studies, IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, 33 (5), 2007

 RQ1: What evidence is there that cross-company estimation

models are not significantly different from within-company
estimation models for predicting effort for software/Web
projects?
 RQ2: What characteristics of the study data sets and the data
analysis methods used in the study affect the outcome of
within- and cross-company effort estimation accuracy
studies?
 RQ3: Which experimental procedure is most appropriate for
studies comparing within- and cross-company estimation
models?
25
Example of RQs
Davis et al., Effectiveness of Requirements Elicitation
Techniques: Empirical Results Derived from a Systematic Review,
14th IEEE Requirements Engineering Conference, 2006

• RQ: What elicitation technique is most

efficient in a particular setting?

26
Example of RQs
Radjenovic et al., “Software fault prediction metrics:
A systematic literature review”

• RQ1: Which software metrics for fault prediction

exist in literature?
• RQ2: What data sets are used for evaluating
metrics?

27
SLR Protocol
• A plan that specifies the basic review
procedures (method)
• Components of a protocol:
1. Background
2. Research Questions
3. Search terms
4. Selection criteria
5. Quality checklist and procedures
6. Data extraction strategy
7. Data synthesis strategy

28
5.3 Tahapan Conducting
1. Identify the relevant literature
2. Perform selection of primary studies
3. Perform data extraction
4. Assess studies’ quality
5. Conduct synthesis of evidence
29
1. Identifying Relevant Literature
• Involves a comprehensive and exhaustive
searching of studies to be included in the review
• Define a search strategy
• Search strategies are usually iterative and benefit
from:
• Preliminary searches (to identify existing review and
volume of studies)
• Trial searches (combination of terms from RQ)
• Check the search results against list of known studies
• Consult the experts in the field

30
Common Approach to Construct Search String

• Derive major terms used in the review questions

based on the PICOC
• List the keywords mentioned in the article
• Search for synonyms and alternative words
• Use the boolean OR to incorporate alternative
synonyms
• Use the boolean AND to link major terms

31
E.g. Search String
Salleh et al. (2011)

• The complete search term initially used :

(student* OR undergraduate*) AND (pair programming OR pair-
programming) AND ((experiment* OR measurement OR evaluation
OR assessment) AND (effective* OR efficient OR successful)
• A very limited number of results retrieved when using
the complete string, thus a much simpler string was
derived.
• Subject librarian suggested to revise the search string:

“pair programming” OR “pair-programming”

32
 E.g. Search String
• Kitchenham et al. (2007) used their structured questions to
construct search strings for use with electronic databases:
 Population: software OR application OR product OR Web OR
WWW OR Internet OR World-Wide Web OR project OR
development
 Intervention: cross company OR cross organisation OR cross
organization OR multiple-organizational OR multiple-
organisational model OR modeling OR modelling effort OR cost
OR resource estimation OR prediction OR assessment
 Contrast: within-organisation OR within-organization OR within-
organizational OR within-organisational OR single company OR
single organisation
 Outcome: Accuracy OR Mean Magnitude Relative Error
• The search strings were constructed by linking the four OR
lists using the Boolean AND
33
Sources of Evidence
• Digital libraries
• Reference lists from relevant primary studies and review
articles
• Journals (including company journals such as the IBM
Journal of Research and Development), grey literature
(i.e. technical reports, work in progress)
• Conference proceedings
• Research registers
• The Internet (google)
• Direct contact specific researcher(s)

34
E.g. Sources of Evidence
Salleh et al. (2011)

 Online databases used:

 ACM Digital Library, Current Contents, EBSCOhost, IEEExplore, ISI
Web of Science, INSPEC, ProQuest, Sage Full text Collection,
ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Scopus
 Other search engines used: Google scholar, Citeseer, Agile
Alliance.
 Some databases were selected based on previous studies
we were aware of.

35
 E.g. Sources of Evidence
Kitchenham et al. (2007)
• The search strings were used on 6 digital libraries:
• INSPEC , El Compendex, Science Direct, Web of Science, IEEExplore,
ACM Digital library
• Search specific journals and conf. proceedings:
• Empirical Software Engineering (J)
• Information and Software Technology (J)
• Software Process Improvement and Practice (J)
• Management Science (J)
• International Software Metrics Symposium (C)
• International Conference on Software Engineering (C)
• Manual search:
• Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (C)
• Check references of each relevant article
• Contact researchers
36
Managing Bibliography
• Use relevant Bibliographic package to manage large
number of references
• E.g. Mendeley, EndNote, Zotero, JabRef Reference
Manager etc.

37
 Documenting the Search
• The process of conducting SLR must be transparent and replicable
• The review should be documented in sufficient detail
• The search should be documented and changes noted
• Unfiltered search results should be saved for possible reanalysis

Data Source Documentation

Digital Library Name of Database, Search strategy, Date of search, years

covered by search
Journal Hand Searches Name of journal, Years searched

Conference Title of proceedings/Name of conference, Journal name (if

proceedings published as part of a journal)

38
2. Selection of Studies
• Primary studies need to be assessed for their actual
relevance
• Set the criteria for including or excluding studies
(decided earlier during protocol development, can be
refined later)
• Inclusion & exclusion criteria should be based on RQ
• Selection process should be piloted
• Study selection is a multistage process

39
E.g. Selection of Studies
Kitchenham et al. (2007) used the following
inclusion criteria:
• Any study that compared predictions of cross-company
models with within-company models based on analysis
of single company project data.

They used the following exclusion criteria:

• Studies where projects were only collected from a small
number of different sources (e.g. 2 or 3 companies)
• Studies where models derived from a within-company
data set were compared with predictions from a general
cost estimation model.

40
E.g. Selection of Studies
Salleh et al. (2011)

• Inclusion criteria:
• to include any empirical studies of PP that involved higher
education students as the population of interest.
• Exclusion criteria:
• Papers presenting unsubstantiated claims made by the
author(s), for which no evidence was available.
• Papers about Agile/XP describing development practices other
than PP, such as test-first programming, refactoring etc.
• Papers that only described tools (software or hardware) that
could support the PP practice.
• Papers not written in English.
• Papers involving students but outside higher education.

41
3. Assessing Studies’ Quality
• To provide more detailed Inclusion/Exclusion
criteria
• To check whether quality differences provide an
explanation for differences in study results
• As a means of weighting the importance of
individual studies when results are being
synthesized
• To guide the interpretation of findings and
determine the strength of inferences
• To guide recommendations for further research

42
Assessing Studies’ Quality
• Quality relates to the extent to which the study minimizes
bias and maximizes internal and external validity
(Khan et al. 2001)
• Quality Concepts Definition (Kitchenham & Charter, 2007)
Terms Synonyms Definition
Bias Systematic tendency to produce results that depart
error systematically from the ‘true’ results.
Unbiased results are internally valid
Internal Validity The extent to which the design and conduct
Validity of the study are likely to prevent systematic
error. Internal validity is a prerequisite for
external validity
External Generalizabilit The extent to which the effects observed in
Validity y, Applicability the study are applicable outside of the study
43
Assessing Studies’ Quality

• Assessing quality of studies:

• Methodology or design of the study
• Analysis of studies’ findings
• Quality checklist or instrument need to be designed
to facilitate quality assessment
• Most quality checklists include questions aimed at
assessing the extent to which articles have addressed
bias and validity

44
 E.g. Study Quality Assessment - Salleh et al. (2011)
Item Answer
1. Was the article referred? [30] Yes/No
2. Were the aim(s) of the study clearly stated? [16], [67] Yes/No/Partially
3. Were the study participants or observational units adequately described?
For example, students’ programming experience, year of study etc. Yes/No/Partially
[44], [68]
4. Were the data collections carried out very well? For example, discussion
of procedures used for collection, and how the study setting may have Yes/No/Partially
influenced the data collected [44], [48], [67], [68]
5. Were potential confounders adequately controlled for in the analysis? 67] Yes/No/Partially
6. Were the approach to and formulation of the analysis well conveyed? For
example, description of the form of the original data, rationale for Yes/No/Partially
choice of method/tool/package [48], [67], [68]
7. Were the findings credible? For example, the study was methodologically
explained so that we can trust the findings; findings/conclusions are Yes/No/Partially
resonant with other knowledge and experience [48], [44], [68]
45
E.g. Study Quality Assessment

Kitchenham et al. (2007) constructed a quality

questionnaire based on 5 issues affecting the quality
of the study:

1. Is the data analysis process appropriate?

2. Did studies carry out a sensitivity or residual analysis?
3. Were accuracy statistics based on the raw data scale?
4. How good was the study comparison method?
5. The size of the within-company data set
(e.g < 10 projects considered poor quality)

46
4. Data Extraction
• Involve reading the full text article
• Data extracted from primary studies should be recorded using
data extraction form
• The form should be designed and piloted when the protocol is
defined
• Collect all the information that can be used to answer the RQ
and the study’s quality criteria
• Both quality checklist and review data can be included in the
same form
• In case of duplicates publications (reporting the same data),
refer the most complete one
• For validation, a set of papers should be reviewed by 2 or more
researchers. Compare results and resolve any conflicts
47
5. Synthesis of Evidence
• Involves collating and summarizing the results of the
included primary studies
• Key objectives of data synthesis (Cruzes & Dyba, 2011):
• to analyze and evaluate multiple studies
• to select appropriate methods for integrating or
providing new interpretive explanations about them
• Synthesis can be:
• Descriptive (narrative/non-quantitative)
• Quantitative (e.g. meta-analysis)

(Cruzes et al., Research Synthesis in Software Engineering: A tertiary study,

Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 2011)
48
Descriptive Synthesis (Narrative)
“An approach to the synthesis of findings from multiple studies
that relies primarily on the use of words and text to summarize
and explain the findings of the synthesis. It adopts a textual
approach to the process of synthesis to ‘tell the story’ of the
findings from the included studies.” (Popay et al. 2006)

• Use tables to tabulate information extracted from included

studies (e.g. population, number of included studies, study
quality etc.)
• Tables should be structured to highlight similarity or differences
of study outcomes
• Were the findings consistent (homogeneous) or inconsistent?
49
Quantitative Synthesis (Meta-Analysis)
• Meta-analysis can be used to aggregate results or to pool
data from different studies
• The outcome of a meta-analysis is an average effect size
with an indication of how variable that effect size is
between studies
• Meta-analysis involves three main steps:
1. Decide which studies to be included in the meta-analysis
2. Estimate an effect size for each individual study
3. Combine the effect sizes from the individual studies to
estimate and test the combined effect
• Results of the meta-analysis can be presented in a forest
plot
50
5.4 Tahapan Reporting

Write up the SLR report/paper

51
Reporting SLR results in Journals
• Some journals and conferences include a specific topic on
SLR:
• Information & Software Technology has an editor
specializing in systematic reviews
• Journal of Systems and Software
• Expert Systems with Applications
• IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
• International Symposium on Empirical Software
Engineering & Measurement (ESEM)
• International Conference on Evaluation & Assessment
in Software Engineering (EASE)
• International Workshop on Evidential Assessment of
Software Technologies (EAST)

52
Reporting Structure
• Introduction
• General introduction about the research. State the
purpose of the review. Emphasize the reason(s) why the
RQ is important. State the significance of the review
work and how the project contributes to the body of
knowledge of the field.
• Main Body
• Review method – briefly describe steps taken to conduct
the review
• Results – findings from the review
• Discussion – implication of review for research &
practice
• Conclusions

53
Reference
• Abbott, M., & McKinney, J. (2013). Understanding and Applying
Research Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Berndtsson, M., Hansson, J., & Olsson, B. (2008). Thesis Projects:
a Guide for Students in Computer Science and Information
Systems (2nd ed.). London: Springer-Verlag
• Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2006). How to Research (3rd
ed.). Open University Press
• Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a Design
Research Methodology. Springer-Verlag London
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research Methods in
Education (5th ed.). Taylor & Francis Group
• Dawson, C. W. (2009). Projects in Computing and Information
Systems A Student’s Guide (2nd ed.). Pearson Education Limited
• Jonker, J., & Pennink, B. (2010). The Essence of Research
Methodology. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
• Lichtfouse, E. (2013). Scientific Writing for Impact Factor Journals.
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
54
Reference
• Kothari, C. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and
Techniques. New Age International
• Might, M. (2010). The Illustrated Guide to a Ph.D. Matt.might.net.
Retrieved from http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-
pictures/
• Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Fertinger, D. (2005). Essentials of
Research Design and Methodology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2014). Designing and Conducting
Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide (4th ed.). John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
• Runeson, P., Host, M., Rainer, A., & Regnell, B. (2012). Case Study
Research in Software Engineering: Guidelines and Examples. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Sahu, P. K. (2013). Research Methodology: A Guide for
Researchers In Agricultural Science, Social Science and Other
Related Fields. Springer
• Veit, R., Gould, C., & Gould, K. (2013). Writing, Reading, and
Research (9th ed.). Cengage Learning
55