A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 4-12

  Lawless, Harry T ^a   Popper, Richard ^b   Kroll, Beverley J ^b  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b Peryam and Kroll Research Corporation   (United States)

Author keywords

Food acceptance; Hedonic scale; Scaling

Indexed keywords

SOLANUM TUBEROSUM;

EID: 70350599524     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.06.009     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Amoore J.E., Venstrom D., and Davis A.R. Measurement of specific anosmia. Perceptual and Motor Skills 26 (1968) 143-164
2. Baird J.C., and Noma E. Fundamentals of scaling and psychophysics (1978), John Wiley & Sons, New York
3. Bartoshuk L.M., Duffy V.B., Fast K., Greeb B.G., Prutkin J., and Snyder D.J. Labeled scales (e.g. category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons: What we have learned from genetic variation in taste. Food Quality and Preference 14 12 (2002) 5-138
4. Bendig A.W., and Hughes J.B. Effect of number of verbal anchoring and number of rating scale categories upon transmitted information. Journal of Experimental Psychology 46 2 (1953) 87-90
5. Borg G. A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In: Geissler H.-G., and Petzold P. (Eds). Psychophysical judgment and the process of perception (1982), VEB Deutscherverlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin 25-34
6. Cardello A., Lawless H.T., and Schutz H.G. Effects of extreme anchors and interior label spacing on labeled magnitude scales. Food Quality and Preference 21 (2008) 323-334
7. Cardello A.V., and Schutz H.G. Research note. Numerical scale-point locations for constructing the LAM (labeled affective magnitude) scale. Journal of Sensory Studies 19 (2004) 341-346
8. Chung S.-J., and Vickers A. Long-term acceptability and choice of teas differing in sweetness. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 963-974
9. Chung S.-J., and Vickers A. Influence of sweetness on the sensory-specific satiety and long-term acceptability of tea. Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 256-264
10. El Dine A.N., and Olabi A. Effect of reference foods in repeated acceptability tests: Testing familiar and novel foods using 2 acceptability scales. Journal of Food Science 74 (2009) S97-S105
11. Forde C.G., and Delahunty C.M. Understanding the role cross-modal sensory interactions play in food acceptability in younger and older consumers. Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 715-727
12. Giovanni M.E., and Pangborn R.M. Measurement of taste intensity and degree of liking of beverages by graphic scaling and magnitude estimation. Journal of Food Science 48 (1983) 1175-1182
13. Green B.G., Shaffer G.S., and Gilmore M.M. Derivation and evaluation of a semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties. Chemical Senses 18 (1993) 683-702
14. Greene J.L., Bratka K.J., Drake M.A., and Sanders T.H. Effective of category and line scales to characterize consumer perception of fruity fermented flavors in peanuts. Journal of Sensory Studies 21 (2006) 146-154
15. Hein K.A., Jaeger S.R., Carr B.T., and Delahunty C.M. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008) 651-661
16. Jaeger S.R., and Cardello A.V. Direct and indirect hedonic scaling methods: A comparison of the labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale and best-worst scaling. Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 249-258
17. Jones L.V., Peryam D.R., and Thurstone L.L. Development of a scale for measuring soldiers' food preferences. Food Research 20 (1955) 512-520
18. 1-3. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 86 (2007) 55-63
19. Lawless H.T., and Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices (1998), Springer, New York
20. Lawless H.T., and Malone G.J. A comparison of scaling methods: Sensitivity, replicates and relative measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies 1 (1986) 155-174
21. Levy J., Morris R., Hammersley M., and Turner R. Discrimination ratio, adjusted correlation and equivalence of imprecise tests: Application to glucose tolerance. American Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 276 (1999) 365-375
22. Peryam D.R. Reflections. Sensory evaluation, in celebration of our beginnings (1989), ASTM International, Conshohocken, PA 21-30
23. Peryam D.R., and Girardot N.F. Advanced taste-test method. Food Engineering 24 (1952) 58-61
24. Peryam D.R., and Pilgrim F.J. Hedonic scale method of measuring food acceptance. Food Technology 11 (1957) 9-14
25. Schutz H.G., and Cardello A.V. A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies 16 (2001) 117-159
26. Stevens S.S. Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review 78 (1971) 328-330
27. Villanueva N.D.M., and Da Silva M.A.A.P. Performance of the nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal preference maps. Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 1-12
28. Villanueva N.D.M., Petenate A.J., and Da Silva M.A.A.P. Comparative performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Quality and Preference 16 (2005) 691-703
29. Wright, A. O. (2007). Comparison of hedonic, LAM, and other scaling methods to determine Warfighter visual liking of MRE packaging labels, includes web-based challenges, experiences and data. Presentation at the seventh Pangborn sensory science symposium, Minneapolis, MN, 8/12/07. Supplement to Abstract Book/Delegate Manual.
30. Yao E., Lim J., Tamaki K., Ishii R., Kim K.-O., and O'Mahony M. Structured and unstructured 9-point hedonic scales: A cross cultural study with American, Japanese and Korean consumers. Journal of Sensory Studies 18 (2003) 115-139