Proposing a ranking descriptive sensory method

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 611-620

  Richter, Vanessa Bragato ^a   de Almeida, Tereza Cristina Avancini ^b   Prudencio, Sandra Helena ^c   de Toledo Benassi, Marta ^c  

^a Prefeitura de Guaira   (Brazil)

^b Secretaria Municipal de Saude de Campinas   (Brazil)

^c STATE UNIVERSITY OF LONDRINA   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Descriptive analysis; Free Choice Profiling; Generalized Procrustes Analysis; Pudding; Quantitative Descriptive Analysis; Ranking

Indexed keywords

THEOBROMA CACAO;

EID: 77953357589     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.011     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Barylko-Pikielna N., Matuszewska I., Jeruszka M., Kozlowska K., Brzozowska A., Roszkowski W. Discriminability and appropriateness of category scaling versus ranking methods to study sensory preferences in elderly. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:167-175.
2. Dairou V., Sieffermann J.-M. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67:826-834.
3. Delarue J., Sieffermann J.-M. Sensory mapping using flash profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:383-392.
4. Dijksterhuis G.B., Gower J.C. The interpretation of generalized procrustes analysis and allied methods. Food Quality and Preference 1991, 3:67-87.
5. Gower J.C. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 1975, 40:33-51.
6. Hein K.A., Jaeger S.R., Carr T.B., Delahunty C.M. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:651-661.
7. Iop S.C.F., Beleia A.P., Silva R.S.F. Formulation and evaluation of dry dessert mix containing sweetener combinations using mixture response methodology. Food Chemistry 1999, 66:167-171.
8. Kilcast D., Clegg S. Sensory perception of creaminess and its relationship with food structure. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:609-623.
9. Kim K., O'Mahony M.A. New approach to category scales of intensity: Traditional vs. rank-rating. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13:241-249.
10. Lee H.S., Hout D., O'Mahony M. Sensory difference tests for margarine: A comparison of R-indices derived from ranking and A-Not A methods considering response bias and cognitive strategies. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:675-680.
11. Lee H.S., O'Mahony M. Sensory evaluation and marketing: Measurement of a consumer concept. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:227-235.
12. Lethuaut L., Brossard C., Meynier A., Rousseau F., Llamas G., Bousseau B., et al. Sweetness and aroma perceptions in dairy desserts varying in sucrose and aroma levels and in textural agent. International Dairy Journal 2005, 15:485-493.
13. Liem D.G., Mars M., Graaf C. Consistency of sensory testing with 4- and 5-year-old children. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:541-548.
14. McEwan J.A. Comparison of sensory panels: A ring trial. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 42:161-171.
15. Meilgaard M.C., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory evaluation techniques 1999, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
16. Moskowitz H.R. Product testing and sensory evaluation of foods - Marketing and R&D approaches 1983, Food and Nutrition Press Inc., Westport.
17. Murray J.M., Delahunty C.M., Baxter I.A. Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International 2001, 34:461-471.
18. Newell G.J., MacFarlane J.D. Expanded tables for multiple comparison procedures in the analysis of ranked data. Journal of Food Science 1987, 52:1721-1725.
19. Oliveira A.P.V., Benassi M.T. Avaliação sensorial de pudins de chocolate com açúcar e dietéticos por Perfil Livre. Ciência e Agrotecnologia 2010, 34:146-154.
20. Oliveira A.P.V., Frasson K., Almeida T.C.A., Benassi M.T. Aceitação de sobremesas lácteas dietéticas e formuladas com açúcar: teste afetivo e mapa de preferência interno. Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos 2004, 24:627-633.
21. OP & P Product Research (1998). Senstools Versão 2.3. Utrecht: OP & P Product Research.
22. Penna E.W. Evaluacion sensorial: una metodologia actual para tecnología de alimentos 1980, Universidade do Chile, Santiago.
23. Rodrigue N., Guillet M., Fortin J., Martin J.F. Comparing information obtained from ranking and descriptive tests of four sweet corn products. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11:47-54.
24. STATSOFT STATISTICA for Windows - Program manual, 1995. Tulsa: Statsoft, Inc.
25. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Quantitative descriptive analysis: Developments, applications, and the future. Food Technology 1998, 52:48-52.
26. Villanueva N.D.M., Petenate A.J., Da Silva Maria A.A.P. Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:691-703.
27. Weenen H., Jellema R.H., Wijk R.A. Sensory sub-attributes of creamy mouthfeel in commercial mayonnaises, custard desserts and sauces. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:163-170.
28. Wijk R.A., Gemert L.J., Terpstra M.E.J., Wilkinson C.L. Texture of semi-solids, sensory and instrumental measurements on vanilla custard desserts. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:305-317.
29. Wijk R.A., Prinz J.F., Janssen A.M. Explaining perceived oral texture of starch-based custard desserts from standard and novel instrumental tests. Food Hydrocolloids 2006, 20:24-34.
30. Williams A.A., Langron S.P. The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercials ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1984, 35:558-568.