Commentary on "Comparative performance of the nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal preference maps"

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 165-166

  Lawless, Harry T ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350608150     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.08.015     Document Type: Letter

References (7)

1. Gay C., and Mead R. A statistical appraisal of the problem of sensory measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies 7 (1992) 205-228
2. Josse J., Pages J., and Husson F. Testing the significance of the Rv coefficient. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 53 (2008) 82-91
3. 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
4. Peryam, D. 1989. Reflections. In Foundations of sensory evaluation: Our beginnings committee E-18. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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