Evaluation of the Labeled Hedonic Scale under different experimental conditions

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 521-530

  Lim, Juyun ^a   Fujimaru, Tomomi ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

9 Point hedonic scale; Discrimination power; Instructions; Labeled Hedonic Scale

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951977290     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bartoshuk L.M., Duffy V.B., Chapo A.K., Fast K., Yiee J.H., Hoffman H.J., et al. From psychophysics to the clinic: Missteps and advances. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:617-632.
2. Cardello A., Lawless H.T., Schutz H.G. Effects of extreme anchors and interior label spacing on labeled affective magnitude scales. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:473-480.
3. Cardello A., Schutz H.G. Effect of food category referents on liking judgments. Seventh Pangborn sensory science symposium 2007, Elsevier, Minneapolis, MN.
4. El Dine A.N., Olabi A. Effect of reference foods in repeated acceptability tests: Testing familiar and novel foods using 2 acceptability scales. Journal of Food Science 2009, 74(2):S97-S106.
5. Engen T., McBurney D.H. Magnitude and category scales of the pleasantness of odors. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1964, 68:435-440.
6. Gay C., Mead R. A statistical appraisal of the problem of sensory measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies 1992, 7:205-228.
7. Giovanni M.E., Pangborn R.M. Measurement of taste intensity and degree of liking of beverages by graphic scales and magnitude estimation. Journal of Food Science 1983, 48:1175-1182.
8. Green B.G., Dalton P., Cowart B., Shaffer G.S., Rankin K., Higgins J. Evaluating the 'Labeled Magnitude Scale' for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chemical Senses 1996, 21:323-334.
9. Green B.G., Shaffer G.S., Gilmore M.M. Derivation and evaluation of a semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties. Chemical Senses 1993, 18:683-702.
10. Greene J.L., Bratka K.J., Drake M.A., Sanders T.H. Effective of category and line scales to characterize consumer perception of fruity fermented flavors in peanuts. Journal of Sensory Studies 2006, 21:146-154.
11. Hollingworth H.L. The central tendency of judgment. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods 1910, 7:461-469.
12. Jones L.V., Peryam D.R., Thurstone L.L. Development of a scale for measuring soldiers' food preferences. Food Research 1955, 20:512-520.
13. Jones L.V., Thurstone L.L. The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology 1955, 39(1):31-36.
14. Lawless H.T., Malone G.J. The discriminative efficiency of common scaling methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 1986, 1(1):85-98.
15. Lawless H.T., Malone G.J. A comparison of rating scales: Sensitivity, replicates and relative measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies 1986, 1(2):155-174.
16. Lawless H.T., Popper R., Kroll B.J. A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category sale and the traditional nine-point hedonic scale. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 2(1):4-12.
17. Lim J., Wood A., Green B.G. Derivation and evaluation of a labeled hedonic scale. Chemical Senses 2009, 34:739-751.
18. Marchisano C., Lim J., Cho H.S., Suh D.S., Jeon S.Y., Kim K.O., et al. Consumers report preference when they should not: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003, 18:487-516.
19. McDaniel M.R., Sawyer F.M. Preference testing of whiskey sour formulation: Magnitude estimation versus the 9-point hedonic scale. Journal of Food Science 1981, 46:182-185.
20. Moskowitz H.R. The sweetness and pleasantness of sugars. American Journal of Psychology 1971, 84:387-405.
21. Moskowitz H.R. Magnitude estimation: Notes on what, how, when, and why to use it. Journal of Food Quality 1977, 3:195-227.
22. Moskowitz H.R. Utilitarian benefits of magnitude estimation scaling for testing product acceptability. Selected sensory methods: Problems and approaches to measuring hedonics, ASTM STP 773 1982, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. J.T. kuznicki, R.A. Johnson, A.F. Rutkiewic (Eds.).
23. Moskowitz H.R., Dravnieks A.L., Klarman L. Odor intensity and pleasantness for a diverse set of odorants. Perception and Psychophysics 1976, 9:122.
24. Moskowitz H.R., Sidel J.L. Magnitude and hedonic scales of food acceptability. Journal of Food Science 1971, 36:677-680.
25. O'Mahony M. Some assumptions and difficulties with common statistics for sensory analysis. Food Technology 1982, 36(11):75-82.
26. Parducci A., Wedell D.H. The category effect with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology - Human Perception and Performance 1986, 12:496-516.
27. Peryam D.R., Girardot N.F. Advanced taste-test method. Food Engineering 1952, 24:58-61.
28. Peryam D.R., Pilgrim F.J. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preference. Food Technology 1957, 11:9-14.
29. Peryam D.R., Polemis B.W., Kamen J.M., Eindhoven J., Pilgrim F.J. Food preferences of men in the US armed forces 1960, Quartermaster Food and Container Institute for the Armed Forces, Chicago, IL.
30. Schutz H.G., Cardello A.V. A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies 2001, 16:117-159.
31. Shand P.J., Hawrysh Z.J., Hardin R.T., Jeremiah L.E. Descriptive sensory assessment of beef steaks by category scaling, line scaling and magnitude estimation. Journal of Food Science 1985, 50:495-500.
32. Stevens S.S. Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. Handbook of experimental psychology 1951, John Wiley and Sons, New York. S.S. Stevens (Ed.).
33. Stevens S.S. The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes: Loudness. American Journal of Psychology 1956, 69:1-25.
34. Stevens S.S., Galanter E.H. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1957, 54(6):377-411.
35. Villanueva N.D.M., Da Silva M.A.A.P. Comparative performance of the nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal preference maps. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:1-12.
36. Villanueva N.D.M., Petenate A.J., Da Silva M.A.A.P. Performance of three affective methods and diagnosis of the ANOVA model. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11:363-370.
37. Villegas-Ruiz X., Angulo O., O'Mahony M. Hidden and false " preferences" on the structured 9-point hedonic scale. Journal of Sensory Studies 2008, 23:780-790.