Parametric and Functional-Based Analysis of Object-Oriented Dynamic Coupling Metrics

  • Navneet KaurEmail author
  • Hardeep Singh
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 771)


Software coupling is considered one of the most crucial issues in the software industry. The measurement of coupling gives a quantitative indication of internal features that are correlated to external quality attributes such as reliability, maintainability, extendibility, functionality and usability of the software. Various static and dynamic metrics have been proposed by several academicians and industry experts to evaluate software coupling. Although the values of static metrics can be easily extracted from the source code without its execution, researchers have emphasized the significance of dynamic metrics over static metrics in terms of program comprehensibility, change proneness, maintainability, etc. This chapter presents some of the dynamic coupling measures and their comparative analysis: (a) parametric-based analysis of six parameters, i.e. quality focus, measured entity, theoretical validation, dynamic analysis approach, environment, and statistical analysis technique; (b) functional-based analysis. Only those metrics which possess the required amount of information have been considered in order to make a meaningful comparison possible. Based on the comparison, the observed results reveal that empirical validation conducted for the evaluation of dynamic coupling metrics is not adequate to make them applicable to industries.


Dynamic coupling Metrics Software maintenance Static measures 


  1. 1.
    Arisholm, E., and Sjùberg, D.I. 2000. Towards a framework for empirical assessment of changeability decay. Journal of Systems and Software, 53 (1): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eder, J., G. Kappel, and M. Schrefl. 1994. Coupling and cohesion in object oriented systems.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chidamber, S., and C. Kemerer. 1994. A metrics suite for object oriented design. Transactions on Software Engineering 20 (6): 476–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, W., and S. Henry. 1993. Object-oriented metrics that predict maintainability. Journal of Systems and Software 23 (2): 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abreu, F.B., and R. Carapuça. 1994. Object-oriented software engineering: Measuring and controlling the development process. In 4th international conference on software quality, McLean, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geetika, R., and P. Singh. 2014. Dynamic coupling metrics for object oriented software systems: A survey. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 39 (2): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yacoub, S., H. Ammar and T. Robinson. Dynamic metrics for object oriented designs. In Sixth international software metrics symposium, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Arisholm. 2002. Dynamic coupling measures for object-oriented software. In Proceedings of the eighth IEEE symposium on software metrics, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arisholm, E., L. Briand, and A. Foyen. 2004. Dynamic coupling measurement for object-oriented software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30 (8): 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hassoun, Y., R. Johnson and S. Counsell. 2004. A dynamic runtime coupling metric for meta-level architectures. In Proceedings of eighth European conference on software maintenance and reengineering (CSMR 2004), Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassoun, Y., R. Johnson and S. Counsell. 2004. Empirical validation of a dynamic coupling metric.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hassoun, Y., S. Counsell, and R. Johnson. 2005. Dynamic coupling metric: proof of concept. IEE Proceedings—Software 152 (6): 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell, A., and J.F.Power. Run-time coupling metrics for the analysis of java programs-preliminary results from the SPEC and grande suites.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitchell, Á., and J.F. Power. 2004. An empirical investigation into the dimensions of run-time coupling in Java programs. In Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on principles and practice of programming in java, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitchell, A., and J.F. Power. 2005. Using object-level run-time metrics to study coupling between objects. In Proceedings of ACM symposium on applied computing, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zaidman, A., and S. Demeyer. 2004. Analyzing large event traces with the help of coupling metrics. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on OO reengineering, University Antwerpen.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Zaidman. 2006. Scalability solutions for program comprehension through dynamic analysis. PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beszedes, A., T. Gergely, S. Farago, T. Gyimothy and F. Fischer. 2007. The dynamic function coupling metric and its use in software evolution. In 11th European conference on software maintenance and reengineering, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Apiwattanapong, T., A. Orso and M.J. Harrold. 2005. Efficient and precise dynamic impact analysis using execute-after sequences. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on software engineering, St. Louis, MO, USA.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singh, P., and H. Singh. 2010. Class-level dynamic coupling metrics for static and dynamic analysis of object-oriented systems. International Journal of Information and Telecommunication Technology 1 (1): 16–28.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Briand, L., J. Daly and J. Wust. 1999. A unified framework for coupling measurement in object-oriented systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25 (1): 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weyuker, E. 1998. Evaluating software complexity measures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14 (1): 1357–1365.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raymond, J.A., and D.L. Alex. 1997. A data model for object oriented design metrics. Kingston, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guru Nanak Dev UniversityAmritsarIndia

Personalised recommendations