36 hours ago Apr 30, 2022 · Ad hoc Testing. Ad hoc Testing is an informal or unstructured software testing type that aims to break the testing process in order to find possible defects or errors at an early possible stage. Ad hoc testing is done randomly and it is usually an unplanned activity which does not follow any documentation and test design techniques to create test cases. >> Go To The Portal
Apr 30, 2022 · Ad hoc Testing. Ad hoc Testing is an informal or unstructured software testing type that aims to break the testing process in order to find possible defects or errors at an early possible stage. Ad hoc testing is done randomly and it is usually an unplanned activity which does not follow any documentation and test design techniques to create test cases.
Jan 29, 2019 · Adhoc testing is usually performed to break the system and using unconventional ways. The most astounding feature of Adhoc testing is that it does not have any test design technique to create test cases. The process is usually performed to find loopholes of a software. Since Adhoc testing does not have test cases it is often performed without any documentation.
Ad-hoc testing gives freedom to the tester to apply their own new ways of testing the application which helps them to find out more number of defects compared to the formal testing process. This type of testing can be done at anytime anywhere in the Software Development Life cycle (SDLC) without following any formal process.
Aug 31, 2020 · AD HOC TESTING, also known as Random Testing or Monkey Testing, is a method of software testing without any planning and documentation. The tests are conducted informally and randomly without any formal procedure or expected results. ISTQB Definition. random testing: A black-box test technique in which test cases are designed by generating random …
Ad-Hoc testing is usually conducted by a tester who has a strong knowledge of the software under test, regarding what it does and how it works. This testing is done by randomly creating test cases through error guessing and executing them, without following any requirements for the test.
It can be performed after the complete development of the software, or even after a few modules have been developed. It can also be conducted during the process of formal testing methods as well.
For example, identifying errors that occur when the option for JavaScript is disabled in different browsers, etc.
An advantage of Ad-Hoc testing is that it saves quite a lot of time, which otherwise goes into the creation of documents like test requirements, test case planning, designing, etc.
In this approach, every activity that occurs during the testing procedure, from the creation of test cases to their sequential execution, everything is scripted. The testers follow this script to conduct tests according to it.
In this type of Ad-Hoc testing, tests are conducted with the team effort of at least two people. This team is usually made up of at least one software tester and one software developer.
This helps the developers to generate more effective and error-free codes easily.
When you talk about ad-hoc testing, it means that it is a form of a black box or behavioral testing performed without any formal process in place.
Ad-hoc testing has to only be performed by a very knowledgeable and skilled tester in the team as it demands being proactive and intuition in terms of foreseeing potential defect ridden areas.
Let’s take a look at some of the drawbacks that are pronounced: Since it’s not very organized and there is no documentation mandated, the most evident problem is that the tester has to remember and recollect all the details of the ad-hoc scenarios in memory.
Ad-hoc testing ensures that the testing performed is complete and is particularly very useful in determining the effectiveness of the test bucket.
The developer will gain a perspective of all the different tests the tester runs and the tester will gain a perspective of how the inherent design is which will help him avoid designing invalid scenarios , thereby preventing invalid defects. It will help one think like think the other.
Since ad-hoc testing is more of a “wild-child” testing technique that doesn’t have to be structured, the general recommendation is that it must be performed after the execution of the current test bucket is done. Another point of view is that this could be done when detailed testing cannot be performed due to less time.
Yes, yes this point might confuse you a bit as we described ad-hoc testing as testing which should have no planning or documentation. The idea here is to stick to the essence of ad-hoc testing, but still, have some rough pointers jotted down on how you plan to test.
Ad hoc testing is very much the opposite of this, but what it does so well is that it provides a different insight than the normal avenues of testing and enables you to identify faults that you wouldn’t normally find.
First, if ad hoc testing is to be done for multiple features, then testers should first categorize and prioritize the features.
Buddy: Two buddies work together to identify any defect in the same module. One buddy will be from the developing side and the other buddy will be from the testing side. Importantly, it allows for testers to develop better test cases and allows developers to make design changes at an early stage, before its too late. This happens after Unit Testing is completed.
Ad hoc testing sometimes referred to as ‘random testing’ or ‘monkey testing’, is defined as an informal testing type. The aim of this process is to break the system using unconventional methods. This type of software testing is generally unplanned and does not follow any specific test design techniques to create test cases.
Ad hoc testing is commonly conducted when there is a lack of time to perform longer and more exhaustive testing processes. The more thorough testing method includes preparing test requirements documents, test cases, and test case designs. The ideal time to conduct ad hoc testing is after the completion of all formal testing techniques.
Buddy testing has proved successful as it helps the tester develop better test cases and allows the development team to make design changes as early as possible. 2. Monkey Testing. Due to the random nature of the testing, this method has earned the name ‘monkey testing’.
One of the main advantages of ad hoc testing is that it is able to identify any errors that would usually go unnoticed during formal testing methods. This can save a lot of time as it requires none of the planning that structured testing does.
Since there are no previously created or documented test cases, the amount of time, effort and resources that go into these tests remains unspecified. Finding one error could take anything from a few minutes to a few hours or longer.
The two testers will share ideas, knowledge, and opinions over the same machine in order to identify defects or errors. This method of testing involves using testers who are paired according to their expertise and knowledge levels, allowing for different insights to any problem they identify.
This type of ad hoc testing is conducted with a minimum of two people. It takes place after unit testing of a module has been conducted and completed. This type of testing can also be considered a combination of both system and unit testing.
The meaning of word Ad-hoc is something which is not in order or not organised or unstructured. In the similar note the Ad-hoc testing is nothing but a type of black box testing or behavioural testing. Ad-hoc testing is carried out without following any formal process like requirement documents, test plan, test cases, etc.
Ad-hoc testing proves to be very beneficial when there is less time and in-depth testing of the feature is required. This helps in delivering the feature with quality and on time. Ad-hoc testing can be simultaneously executed with the other types of testing which helps in finding more bugs in lesser time.
Below are few of the advantages or benefits related to the Ad-hoc testing: Ad-hoc testing gives freedom to the tester to apply their own new ways of testing the application which helps them to find out more number of defects compared to the formal testing process.
The tester who is going to execute the ad-hoc testing should have a very good knowledge of the product. He should be very well aware with all the features in the product. This helps the tester in error guessing and finding the maximum number of bugs from the defect prone areas.
If ad-hoc testing is not executed in the proper manner then it can result in total loss of time and effort. Below are few pointers to keep in mind as where and how to apply this ad-hoc testing:
The testers who perform this testing should have a very good and in-depth knowledge of the product or application.
Basically there are three types of Ad-hoc testing. They are:
Ad hoc testing is normally done when there is limited time or resources to do in-depth testing. For example, software delivery deadline could be 5 PM today but the build gets ready only at 4 PM and there is just 1 hour to check for any errors.
AD HOC TESTING, also known as Random Testing or Monkey Testing, is a method of software testing without any planning and documentation. The tests are conducted informally and randomly without any formal procedure or expected results.
The tester improvises the steps and arbitrarily executes them (like a monkey typing while dancing). Though defects found using this method are more difficult to reproduce (since there are no written test cases), sometimes very interesting defects are found which would never have been found if written test cases existed and were strictly followed. This method is normally used during Acceptance Testing.
The patient portal and abnormal test results: An exploratory study of patient experiences
All respondents indicated that they use their patient portal to review test results. Many of the patients and caregivers dealing with chronic conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and kidney disease, indicated that they also used their portal to manage and keep track of their medical information. Some of these respondents additionally kept paper records of test results and imaging reports, medication lists, and some kept digital copies of their imaging. There were various reasons; either this information was not made available in the portal or the portal was not up-to-date.
The purpose of this study is to explore patients’ experiences using a portal to manage their medical care specifically as it relates to receiving abnormal test results. This study provides essential information regarding the views of patients using this technology to inform future system development.
Concerns ranged from patient anxiety and confusion to self-harm.
Many health care institutions are implementing patient portals that allow patients to track and maintain their personal health information, mostly in response to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act requirements. Test results review is an area of high interest to patients and provides an opportunity to foster their involvement in preventing abnormal test results from being overlooked, a common patient safety concern. However, little is known about how patients engage with portals to review abnormal results and which strategies could facilitate that interaction in order to ensure safe follow-up on abnormalities. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore patients’ experiences related to abnormal test result notifications through patient portals. The authors conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 13 participants, patients and primary caregivers, between February 2014 and October 2014. Using content analysis, the authors explored patient experiences accessing abnormal test results through their portals. Respondents strongly favored access to all types of abnormal test results, but they raised several concerns including need for more timely notification and not being able to interpret the exact relevance of the result. Respondents’ personal experiences with physicians, test result notification, and the portal heavily influenced respondents’ notification preferences. Patient experiences with portals could be improved by development of strategies to help patients understand and manage the information received. These findings suggest important considerations for health professionals and institutions aiming to better engage patients in follow-up of their test results.
For this respondent, all abnormal test results are potentially sensitive if she’s not sure what the abnormal result means in context.
There was one exception. One respondent indicated that most abnormal test results should not be released prior to verbal contact.
This can be affected by multiple factors at the micro (eg, “individuals”), meso (eg, “re sources”), and macro (eg, “sociopolitical context”) levels [21]. Several implementation models are available, such as “The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR),” which is used in many studies as a guiding framework [22-24]. CFIR consists of 5 levels at which barriers and facilitators can occur during implementation: (1) technology-related factors (eg, “adaptability,” “complexity,” and “cost”); (2) outer setting (eg, “policy and incentives”); (3) inner setting (eg, “resources”); (4) process (eg, “engagement of stakeholders”); and (5) individual health professionals (eg, “individual’s knowledge”). In this model, patients are part of the “outer setting,” suggesting that the CFIR framework is aimed primarily at institutions [24]. Another example is the “Fit between Individuals, Tasks, and Technology” (FITT) framework, which is aimed at the adoption of IT [25]. The comprehensive model of Grol and Wensing [26] summarizes the barriers to and facilitators of change in health care practice at 6 levels: (1) innovation; (2) individual professional; (3) patient; (4) social context; (5) organizational context; and (6) economic and political context. McGinn et al [21] argue that the consideration of various stakeholder opinions can contribute to successful implementations. However, previous research mainly focused on perceptions of single stakeholder groups regarding patient portal implementation, such as physicians [27] or nurses [28]. This highlights the importance of identifying the opinions of many stakeholders during patient portal implementation. Furthermore, it remains unclear which factors are important in accomplishing change in the various groups [26].
All interviews were performed by telephone and lasted for, on average, 20 min. Participants were first asked for their consent to make audio recordings of the interviews. Then, the purpose of the interview was introduced, and subjects were asked if they received the introductory email. This email was then briefly discussed such that the subjects were aware of the topics to be discussed. After that, questions were asked about participants’ characteristics, such as their age and work experience. To make sure an unambiguous definition of a patient portal was used, participants were asked what their definition of a patient portal was, and if necessary, it was complemented with our definition. Then, we asked them about their perceived barriers to and facilitators of patient portal implementation at all 6 levels [26]. If necessary, for example, if the question was unclear, the interviewer provided examples (and these were also sent per email). At the end of the interview, the participants were asked to suggest additional topics or issues, if any, that had not yet been covered. The interviews were in Dutch, and the questions in Multimedia Appendix 1are translations.
Patient-centeredness is an important element of high-quality care: effective communication between patients and their health care professionals , and information access can both contribute considerably to this [1]. According to the Institute of Medicine, “patients should have unfettered access to their own medical information” [2] to support them in taking control of their health (eg, using medical information to make informed health-related decisions) [2]. Information technology (IT) can play an important role in improving access to this information [3], and it also improves the participation of patients in their own care [4]. In health care, an increasingly popular way to facilitate this is by using patient portals [5]. Patient portals can be defined as “applications which are designed to give the patient secure access to health information and allow secure methods for communication and information sharing” [6], as well as for administrative purposes [7], and are mostly provided by a single health care institution [6,8]. These portals are often connected to the electronic health record (EHR) of an institution—defined as tethered patient portals [9]—to provide access to patients’ medical information [3,10-12]. Some institutions allow patient portals to facilitate communication between patients and health care professionals [3,6,12], view their appointments and provide patient education [11,13], share information [12], request for repeat medication prescriptions [3], and provide tailored feedback [11,13]. Patient portals may have a range of functionalities that enable information exchange (such as having access to the EHR), which in turn may facilitate and improve the communication between the patient and the health care professional [11,14]. Previous research showed that patients are especially satisfied with access to information from the EHR and the list of their appointments [11]. Portal use can also have a positive effect on self-management of conditions [15-18], communication between patients and providers, quality of care [16,17] and participation in treatment [17]. Patient empowerment can also be improved; the accessibility of information can especially contribute to “patients’ knowledge” and their “perception of autonomy and being respected” [19]. On the other hand, effects on health outcomes are reported to be mixed [6]. In summary, patient portals can be important as they provide patients with access to their own medical information, enable interaction with their health care professionals [8], and aim to involve patients in their own care processes [1].
Patient portal implementation is a complex process and is not only a technical process but also affects the organization and its staff. Barriers and facilitators occurred at various levels and differed among hospital types (eg, lack of accessibility) and stakeholder groups (eg, sufficient resources) in terms of several factors. Our findings underscore the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in portal implementations. We identified a set of barriers and facilitators that are likely to be useful in making strategic and efficient implementation plans.