Developer experience · Empirical study

Technical debt cripples software developer productivity

Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Technical Debt · 2018

Terese Besker, Antonio Martini, Jan Bosch

Summary

Empirical study links technical debt with loss of developer productivity/development work; replication and extension examine the relationship.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Track debt as a productivity and retention risk; prioritize cleanup using developer-work and delivery evidence.

Reported result

What the study found

Empirical study links technical debt with loss of developer productivity/development work; replication and extension examine the relationship.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How does the study’s stated design explain its reported outcome in this setting?

Design

Empirical study

Sample and setting

Abstract-only; sample/context details not available in the fetched metadata.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Only the DOI metadata/abstract was fetched; detailed methods, sample size, effect sizes, and external-validity constraints require full text.

Research sources

abstract_only

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.