Validating Object-Oriented Cognitive Complexity Metrics Using Briand’s Properties

Software complexity metrics serve as quantitative indicators that help practitioners and researchers evaluate various quality attributes of software systems, including maintainability, testability, reusability, and overall design quality. Numerous researchers have developed various complexity metrics specifically designed for Object-Oriented (OO) design paradigms. Among these contributions, Cognitive Weighted Inheritance Class Complexity (CWICC) and Interface-Based Cognitive Weighted Class Complexity (ICWCC) have emerged as significant measures for assessing the cognitive burden imposed by inheritance hierarchies and interface-based architectural patterns. To establish their scientific validity and practical reliability, these metrics require comprehensive theoretical evaluation against well-established software engineering principles. This research presents a systematic and rigorous evaluation of both CWICC and ICWCC metrics with Briand's validation criteria a widely accepted theoretical frameworks for assessing the effectiveness and soundness of software complexity measurement approaches. Through this comprehensive analysis, the study aims to validate the theoretical foundations of these cognitive complexity metrics and determine their suitability for practical application in object-oriented software quality assessment.

Complexity, Cognitive, Object-oriented metrics, Briand's properties

1. Baron, M. M., Wyrich, M., & Wagner, S. (2020). An empirical validation of cognitive complexity as a measure of source code understandability. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 1–6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Srinivasan, K. P., & Devi, T. (2014). Software metrics and software coding measurement in software engineering. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 4(1), 303–308. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Fenton, N. E., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1997). Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: PWS Publishing Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chidamber, S. R., & Kemerer, C. F. (1994). A metrics suite for object-oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(6), 476–493. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Srinivasan, K. P., & Devi, T. (2014). A complete and comprehensive metrics suite for object-oriented design quality assessment. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 8(2), 173–188. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Weyuker, E. J. (1988). Evaluating software complexity measures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 14(9), 1357–1365. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Briand, L. C., Morasca, S., & Basili, V. R. (1996). Property-based software engineering measurement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22(1), 68–86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Harrison, R., Counsell, S., & Nithi, R. (2014). Cognitive complexity metrics for object-oriented systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 89, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Li, W., & Henry, S. (2015). Maintenance metrics for the object-oriented paradigm. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice, 7(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Al Dallal, J. (2016). Inheritance metrics for object-oriented design. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 9(2), 63–72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S. L., & Fenton, N. (1995). Towards a framework for software measurement validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(12), 929–944. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Sharma, A., Kumar, R., & Grover, P. S. (2008). Empirical evaluation and validation of interface complexity metrics for software components. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 18(7), 919–931. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Singh, Y., Kaur, A., & Malhotra, R. (2010). Empirical validation of object-oriented metrics for predicting fault proneness models. Software Quality Journal, 16(1), 3–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Angelpreethi, A., Britto Ramesh Kumar, S. (2018). Opinion Mining on Hybrid Approach: A Perspective, International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science and Management Studies, 7(5). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gupta, V. (2011). Validation of dynamic coupling metrics for object-oriented software. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 36(5), 1–3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Bajeh, A. O., Basri, S., & Jung, L. T. (2014). A theoretical validation of the number of polymorphic methods as a complexity metric. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCOINS), 1–6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kumar, R. (2014). Theoretical validation of inheritance metrics for object-oriented design against Briand’s property. International Journal of Information and Electronics Engineering, 6(3), 28–33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Manju, & Bhatia, P. K. (2021). Validation of object-oriented static and dynamic metrics. Proceedings of the Computing Intelligence Conference, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Sabharwal, S., & Nagpal, S. (2018). Theoretical and empirical validation of coupling metrics for object-oriented data warehouse design. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 43(8), 4119–4138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Singh, T., Patidar, V., & Singh, M. (2024). A novel metric for assessing structural complexity of data warehouse requirements models. Expert Systems with Applications, 255, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Luhaybi, A. M. A., & Aljedaibi, W. (2020). Using Briand’s properties to theoretically validate Li inheritance metrics. American Academic and Scholarly Research Journal, 12(4), 1–6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Maheswaran, K., & Aloysius, A. (2018). Cognitive weighted inherited class complexity metric. Procedia Computer Science, 125, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Maheswaran, K., & Aloysius, A. (2018). An interface-based cognitive weighted class complexity measure for object-oriented design. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 118(18), 2771–2778. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Wang, Y., & Shao, J. (2003). A new measure of software complexity based on cognitive weights. IEEE Canadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet