Assessment of preference with controls for response bias operating in the test situation: A practical example using omega-3 enriched wholegrain breads with ecuadorian consumers

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 659-671

  Alvarez Coureaux, Yamilla ^a   Aguilar, Patricia ^a   O'mahony, Michael ^b   Angulo, Ofelia ^c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD SAN FRANCISCO DE QUITO   (Ecuador)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO DE VERACRUZ   (Mexico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

OMEGA-3; OMEGA-3-FATTY ACIDS; RESPONSE BIAS; SENSORY ATTRIBUTES;

FATTY ACIDS; FOOD PRODUCTS;

TESTING;

HELIANTHUS; SECALE CEREALE;

EID: 78149263280     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00295.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. ALFARO-RODRIGUEZ, H., ANGULO, O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2007. Be your own placebo: A double paired preference test approach for establishing expected frequencies. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 353-361.
2. ALFARO-RODRIGUEZ, H., ANGULO, M. and O'MAHONY, M. 2008. Paired preference tests: "50:50" and "Alternating" no preferences. J. Sens. Stud. 23, 765-779.
3. ANGULO, O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2005. The paired preference test and the "No Preference" option: Was Odesky correct? Food Qual. Prefer. 16, 425-434.
4. ANGULO, O., OKAYAMA, T., NAKAMURA, T., YUEN, R. and O'MAHONY, M. 2009. Use of purchase preference options to increase "no preference" frequencies in placebo preference tests. J. Sensory Studies 24, 258-268.
5. BOWKER, A.H. 1948. Atest for symmetry in contingency tables. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 43, 572-574.
6. CHAPMAN, K.W. and LAWLESS, H.T. 2005. Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. J. Sensory Studies 20, 454-468.
7. CHAPMAN, K.W., GRACE-MARTIN, K. and LAWLESS, H.T. 2006. Expectations and stability of preference choice. J. Sensory Studies 21, 441-455.
8. DESSIRIER, J.-M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1999. Comparison of d′ values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power. Food Qual. Pref. 10, 51-58.
9. ENNIS, D.M. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44, 114-118.
10. ENNIS, D.M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
11. ENNIS, D.M. and COLLINS, J. 1980. The distinction between discrimination and splitting in paired testing. Report #80-233, Philip Morris Research Center, Richmond, VA, pp 1-50.
12. ENNIS, D.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 1088-1097.
13. FOLEY, M., WILLIAMS, A., BADE, J., LANCASTER, B., POPPER, R. and CARR, B.T. 2003. Effect of preference-question format with and without sample differences. In Abstracts of The 5th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, July 2003, Boston, Massachusetts, Abstract # 043.
14. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Senses Flavor 4, 355-358.
15. GREEN, D.M. and SWETS, J.A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
16. KIM, H.-J., JEON, S.Y., KIM, K.-O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2006. Thurstonian models and variance I: Experimental confirmation of cognitive strategies for difference tests and effects of perceptual variance. J. Sensory Studies 21, 465-484.
17. KIM, H.-S., LEE, H.-S., O'MAHONY, M. and KIM, K.-O. 2008. Paired preference tests using placebo pairs and different response options for chips, orange juices and cookies. J. Sensory Studies 23, 417-438.
18. LAU, S., O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2004. Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects testing taste discrimination. Percept. Psychophys. 66, 464-474.
19. LAWLESS, H.T. and HEYMANN, H. 1998. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.
20. LEE, H.-S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2004. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 13, 841-847.
21. LEE, H.-S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2007a. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 369-383.
22. LEE, H.-S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2007b. Difference test sensitivity: Cognitive contrast effects. J. Sensory Studies 22, 17-33.
23. MACMILLAN, N.A. and CREELMAN, C.D. 2005. Detection Theory: A User's Guide, 2nd Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
24. MARASCUILO, L.A. and MCSWEENEY, M. 1977. Non Parametric and Distribution-Free Methods for the Social Sciences, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Monterrey, CA.
25. MARCHISANO, C., LIM, J., CHO, H.-S., SUH, D.-S., JEON, S.-Y., KIM, K.O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2003. Consumers report preference when they should not: A cross-cultural study. J. Sensory Studies 18, 487-516.
26. MAXWELL, A.E. 1970. Comparing the classification of subjects by two independent judges. Br. J. Psychiatry 116, 651-655.
27. MCNEMAR, Q. 1947. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 12, 153-157.
28. O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Sensory measurements in food science: Fitting methods to goals. Food Technol. 49, 72-82.
29. O'MAHONY, M. and GOLDSTEIN, L. 1986. The effectiveness of sensory difference tests: Sequential sensitivity analysis for liquid food stimuli. J. Food Sci. 51, 1550-1553.
30. O'MAHONY, M. and GOLDSTEIN, L. 1987. Tasting successive salt and water stimuli: The roles of adaptation, variability in physical signal strength, learning, supra- and subadapting signal detectability. Chem. Senses 12, 425-436.
31. O'MAHONY, M., MASUOKA, S. and ISHII, R. 1994. A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. J. Sensory Studies 9, 247-272.
32. O'MAHONY, M. and ODBERT, N. 1985. A comparision of sensory difference testing procedures. Sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. J. Food Sci. 50, 1055-1058.
33. O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2002. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 157-164.
34. O'MAHONY, M. and WICHCHUKIT, S. 2009. Paired preference tests: Do consumers take away what they say they prefer? Proceedings of the 8th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Florence, 26-30 July Abstract # 34.
35. ROSAS-NEXTICAPA, M., ANGULO, O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2005. How well does the 9-point hedonic scale predict purchase frequency? J. Sensory Studies 20, 313-331.
36. SANTOSA, M. and O'MAHONY, M. 2008. Sequential sensitivity analysis for same-different tests: Some further insights. J. Sens. Stud. 23, 267-283.
37. SHESKIN, D.J. 2007. Handbook of Parametric and Non-Parametric Statistical Procedures, 4th Ed., Chapmann & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
38. STUART, A. 1955. A test for homogeneity of the marginal distributions in a two-way classification. Biometrika 42, 412-416.
39. SUNG, Y.E. 2009. Use of Placebo Stimuli with "Liking" Preferences and "Buying" Preference, MS thesis Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
40. VILLEGAS-RUIZ, X., ANGULO, O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2008. Paired preference "placebo" tests with "identical" stimuli: Does introducing graded preference responses affect the frequency of "No Preference" responses? J. Sensory Studies 23, 431-449.