The quest for the ideal product: Comparing different methods and approaches

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 729-740

  van Trijp, Hans C M ^a,c   Punter, Pieter H ^b   Mickartz, Femke ^a,b   Kruithof, Lotje ^b  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b OP and P Product Research   (Netherlands)

^c UNILEVER RESEARCH VLAARDINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Conventional method; JAR method; Product development; Product optimisation; Sensory research; Variant method

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947725418     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. ASTM-E18 (in press). WK371 New guide for use, benefits and risks associated with just about right scales in sensory evaluation testing with consumers (E-18.04.26 wk 371). Committee E18 on Sensory Evaluation. Staff Manage: Scott Orthey (at this moment this document is not published).
2. Benner M., Linnemann A.R., Jongen W.M.F., and Folstar P. Quality function deployment (QFD) - can it be used to develop food products?. Food Quality and Preference 14 (2003) 327-339
3. Bower J.A., and Boyd R. Effect of health concern and consumption patterns on measures of sweetness by hedonic and just about right scales. Journal of Sensory Studies 18 (2002) 235-248
4. Chambers E., and Baker Wolf M. Sensory testing methods. 2nd ed. (1996), ASTM, West Conshohocken
5. Engel J.E., Blackwell R.D., and Miniard P.W. Consumer behavior. 8th ed. (1995), The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace College Publishers
6. Epler S., Chambers E., and Kemp K.E. Hedonic scales are better predictor than just about right scales of optimal sweetness in lemonade. Journal of Sensory Studies 13 (1997) 191-197
7. Jaeger S.R., Lund C.M., Lau K., and Harker F.R. In search of the "ideal" pear (pyrus spp.): results of a multidisciplinary exploration. Journal of Food Science 68 (2003) 1108-1117
8. Meilgaard M., Civille G.V., and Carr B.T. Sensory evaluation techniques. 3rd ed. (1999), CRC Press, Boca Raton
9. Meullenet J.F., and Xiong R. Bootstrap penalty analysis: Alternatives to distributions and penalty analysis (2004), University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture
10. Moskowitz H.R. Just about right (JAR) directionality and the wandering sensory unit. In data analysis workshop: getting most out of just-about-right data. Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 891-899
11. Murray J.M., Delahunty C.M., and Baxter I.A. Descriptive sensory analysis: past, present and future. Food Research International 34 (2001) 461-471
12. Popper R., and Kroll D.R. Just-about-right scales in consumer research. Chemo Sense 7 (2005) 1-6
13. Popper R., Rosenstock W., Schraidt M., and Kroll B.J. The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings. Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 853-858
14. Stone H., and Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices (1985), Academic Press, Orlando
15. Thompson J.L., Drake M.A., Lopetcharat K., and Yates M.D. Preference mapping of commercial chocolate milks. Journal of Food Science 69 (2004) 406-413
16. van Kleef E., Van Trijp H.C.M., and Luning P. Internal versus external preference analysis: An exploratory study on end-user evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 387-399
17. van Schuur W.H. Preference mapping: An introduction to Carroll & Chang's program PREFMAP (1976), University of Groningen
18. Xie M., Goh T.N., and Wang H. A study of the sensitivity of "consumer voice" in QFD analysis. International Journal of Industrial Engineering-theory Applications and Practice 5 (1998) 301-307
19. Xiong R., and Meullenet J.F. A PLS dummy variable approach to assess the impact of JAR attributes on liking. Food Quality and Preference 17 3 (2006) 188-198