Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 454-468

  Chapman, Kathryn W ^a   Lawless, Harry T ^a  

^a Stocking Hall ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27844510427     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2005.00039.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. ANASTASI, A. 1954. Psychological Testing. MacMillan, New York.
2. ANGULO, O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2005. The paired preference test and the "no preference" option: Was Odesky correct? Food Qual. Prefer. 16, 425-434.
3. BI, J. and ENNIS, D.M. 1999. Beta-binomial tables for replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sens. Stud. 14, 347-368.
4. BI, J., TEMPLETON-JANIK, L., ENNIS, J.M. and ENNIS, D.M. 2000. Replicated difference and preference tests: How to account for intertrial variation. Food Qual. Prefer. 11, 269-273.
5. CLEAVER, G. and WEDEL, M. 2001. Identifying random-scoring respondents in sensory research using finite regression models. Food Qual. Prefer. 12, 373-384.
6. ENNIS, D.M. and BI, J. 1998. The beta-binomial model: Accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sens. Stud. 13, 389-412.
7. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979. The paradox of the discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Senses 4, 355-358.
8. GRIDGEMAN, N.T. 1959. Pair comparison, with and without ties. Biometrics 15, 328-388.
9. LAWLESS, H.T. and HEYMANN, H. 1998. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. Chapman & Hall, New York.
10. LIGGETT, R.E. and DELWICHE, J.F. 2005. The beta-binomial model: Variability in overdispersion across methods and over time. J. Sens. Stud. 20, 48-61.
11. MACMILLAN, N.A. and CREELMAN, C.D. 1991. Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
12. MARCHISANO, C., LIM, J., CHO, H.S., SUH, D.S., JEON, S.Y., KIM, K.O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2003. Consumers report preference when they should not: A cross-cultural study. J. Sens. Stud. 18, 487-516.
13. MOSKOWITZ, H. and KRIEGER, B. 1998. International product optimization: A case history. Food Qual. Prefer. 9, 443-454.
14. O'MAHONY, M.A.P.D.E. and ODBERT, N. 1985. A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures: Sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. J. Food Sci. 50, 1055-1058.
15. O'MAHONY, M., PARK, H., PARK, J.Y. and KIM, K.-O. 2004. Comparison of the statistical analysis of hedonic data using analysis of variance and multiple comparisons versus an R-index analysis of the ranked data. J. Sens. Stud. 19, 519-529.
16. ODESKY, S.H. 1967. Handling the neutral vote in paired comparison product testing. J. Marketing Res. 4, 199-201.
17. QUESENBERRY, C.P. and HURST, D.C. 1964. Large sample simultaneous confidence intervals for multinomial proportions. Technometrics 6, 191-195.
18. ROSSI, F. 2001. Assessing sensory panelist performance using repeatabilitiy and reproducibility measures. Food Qual. Prefer. 12, 467-479.
19. SCHEFFE, H. 1952. On analysis of variance for paired comparisons. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47, 318-400.
20. STONE, H. and SIDEL, J. 1993. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 2nd Ed., Academic Press, New York, NY.
21. THURSTONE, L.L. 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273-286.