A comparison of three commonly used methods for treating no preference votes

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 123-129

  Ennis, John M ^a   Ennis, Daniel M ^a  

^a Institute for Perception   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FALSE ALARMS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TYPE-I ERROR;

EID: 84859361090     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2012.00374.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

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. 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.
3. ASTM. 2006. Standard guide for sensory claim substantiation - 1958E. ASTM International.
4. BAKER, G.A., AMERINE, M.A. and ROESSLER, E.B. 1954. Errors of the second kind in organoleptic difference testing. J. Food Sci. 19, 206-210.
5. BI, J. 2011. Similarity tests using forced-choice methods in terms of Thurstonian discriminal distance, d?. J. Sensory Studies 26, 151-157.
6. BI, J. and ENNIS, D.M. 1999. The power of sensory discrimination methods used in replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sensory Studies 14, 289-302.
7. BI, J. and ENNIS, D.M. 2001. The power of the "A"-"Not A" method. J. Sensory Studies 16, 343-359.
8. BRAUN, V., ROGEAUX, M., SCHNEID, N., O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2004. Corroborating the 2-AFC and 2-AC Thurstonian models using both a model system and sparkling water. Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 501-507.
9. 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.
10. CHRISTENSEN, R.H.B., LEE, H.S. and BROCKHOFF, P.B. 2012. Estimation of the Thurstonian model for the 2-AC protocol. Food Qual. Prefer. 24, 119-128.
11. COAKLEY, C.W. and HEISE, M.A. 1996. Versions of the sign test in the presence of ties. Biometrics 52, 1242-1251.
12. DAVIDSON, R.R. 1970. On extending the Bradley-Terry model to accommodate ties in paired comparison experiments. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65, 317-328.
13. DESSIRIER, J.-M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1998. Comparison of d? values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power. Food Qual. Prefer. 10, 1-8.
14. DIXON, W.J. and MOOD, A.M. 1946. The statistical sign test. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 41, 557-566.
15. ENNIS, D.M. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44, 114, 116-117.
16. ENNIS, D.M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
17. ENNIS, D.M. and COLLINS, J. 1980. The distinction between discrimination and splitting in paired testing. Philip Morris Technical Report, 80-233.
18. ENNIS, D.M. and ENNIS, J.M. 2012. Accounting for no difference/preference responses or ties in choice experiments. Food Qual. Prefer. 23, 13-17.
19. ENNIS, D.M., ROUSSEAU, B. and ENNIS, J.M. 2011. Short Stories in Sensory and Consumer Science, IFPress, Richmond, VA.
20. ENNIS, J.M. and JESIONKA, V. 2011. The power of sensory discrimination testing methods revisited. J. Sensory Studies 26, 371-382.
21. GLENN, W.A. and DAVID, H.A. 1960. Ties in paired-comparison experiments using a modified Thurstone-Mosteller model. Biometrics 16, 86-109.
22. GRIDGEMAN, N.T. 1959. Pair comparison, with and without ties. Biometrics 15, 382-388.
23. HEMELRIJK, J. 1952. A theorem on the sign test when ties are present. Proc. Nederl. Akad. Weten. Ser. A 55, 322-326.
24. IRLE, A. and KLOSENER, K.-H. 1980. Note on the sign test in the presence of ties. Ann. Stat. 8, 1168-1170.
25. KIM, H.S., LEE, H.S., O'MAHONY, M. and KIM, K.O.K. 2008. Paired preference tests using placebo pairs and different response options for chips, orange juices and cookies. J. Sensory Studies 23, 417-438.
26. KOUSGAARD, N. 1976. Models for paired comparisons with ties. Scand. J. Stat. 3, 1-14.
27. LAWLESS, H.T. and HEYMANN, H. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, Springer Verlag, New York, NY.
28. MARCHISANO, C., LIM, J., CHO, H.S.U.K., SUH, D.S., JEON, S.Y., KIM, K.O.K. and O'MAHONY, M. 2003. Consumers report preferences when they should not: A cross-cultural study. J. Sensory Studies 18, 487-516.
29. MEILGAARD, M., CIVILLE, G.V. and CARR, B.T. 1991. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
30. MEYNERS, M. and BROCKHOFF, P.B. 2003. The design of replicated difference tests. J. Sensory Studies 18, 291-324.
31. ODESKY, S.H. 1967. Handling the neutral vote in paired comparison product testing. J. Mark. Res. 4, 199-201.
32. PUTTER, J. 1955. The treatment of ties in some nonparametric tests. Ann. Math. Statist. 26, 368-386.
33. RADKINS, A.P. 1957. Some statistical considerations in organoleptic research: Triangle, paired, duo-trio tests. J. Food Sci. 22, 259-265.
34. RAO, P.V. and KUPPER, L.L. 1967. Ties in paired-comparison experiments: A generalization of the Bradley-Terry model. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 62, 194-204.
35. RAYNER, J.C.W. and BEST, D.J. 1999. Modeling ties in the sign test. Biometrics 55, 663-665.
36. RESURRECCION, A.V.A. 1998. Consumer Sensory Testing for Product Development, Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, MD.
37. SCHLICH, P. 1993. Risk tables for discrimination tests. Food Qual. Prefer. 4, 141-151.
38. STONE, H. and SIDEL, J.L. 1993. Sensory Evaluation Practices, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
39. WITTKOWSKI, K.M., COAKLEY, C.W. and HEISE, M.A. 1998. Versions of the sign test in the presence of ties. Biometrics 54, 789-791.