Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 141-153

  Ares, Gastón ^a   Jaeger, Sara R ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^b THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE FOR PLANT AND FOOD RESEARCH LIMITED   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Apples; CATA; Check lists; Consumer research; Strawberries; Survey design

Indexed keywords

FRAGARIA X ANANASSA;

EID: 84867596116     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.016     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Adams, J., Williams, A., Lancaster, B., & Foley, M. (2007). Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. In 7th Pangborn sensory science symposium, 12-16 August 2007. Minneapolis, USA.
2. Andani Z., Jaeger S.R., Wakeling I.N., MacFie H.J.H. Mealiness in apples: Towards a multilingual consumer vocabulary. Journal of Food Science 2001, 66:872-879.
3. Ares G., Barreiro C., Giménez A. Comparison of attribute liking and JAR scales to evaluate the adequacy of sensory attributes of milk desserts. Journal of Sensory Studies 2009, 24:664-676.
4. Ares G., Barreiro C., Deliza R., Giménez A., Gámbaro A. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:67-86.
5. Ares G., Barrios S., Lareo C., Lema P. Development of a sensory quality index for strawberries based on correlation between sensory data and consumer perception. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2009, 52:97-102.
6. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Giménez A. Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange-flavoured powdered drinks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011, 46:1600-1608.
7. Bécue-Bertaut M., Pagès J. Multiple factor analysis and clustering of a mixture of quantitative, categorical and frequency data. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2008, 52:3255-3268.
8. Best S.J., Krueger B. Internet data collection 2004, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
9. Bower J.A., Saadat M.A., Whitten C. Effect of liking, information and consumer characteristics on purchase intention and willingness to pay more for a fat spread with a proven health benefit. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:65-74.
10. Bruzzone F., Ares G., Giménez A. Consumers' texture perception of milk desserts. II - Comparison with trained assessors' data. Journal of Texture Studies 2011, 10.1111/j.1745-4603.2011.00332.x.
11. Castura, J. C. (2009). Do panellists donkey vote in sensory choose-all-that-apply questions? In 8th Pangborn sensory science symposium, July 26-30. Florence, Italy.
12. Curia A.V., Hough G., Martínez M.C., Margalef M.I. How Argentine consumers understand the Spanish translation of the 9-point hedonic scale. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:217-221.
13. Daillant-Spinnler B., MacFie H.J.H., Betys P.K., Hedderley D. Relationships between perceived sensory properties and major preference directions of 12 varieties of apples from the Southern Hemisphere. Food Quality and Preference 1996, 7:113-126.
14. Dairou V., Sieffermann J.-M. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, flash profile. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67:826-834.
15. Dooley L., Lee Y.S., Meullenet J.F. The application of check-all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:394-401.
16. Earthy P.H., MacFie H.J.H., Hedderley D. Effect of question order on sensory perception in central location trials. Journal of Sensory Studies 1997, 12:215-237.
17. Fisher R.A. Statistical methods for research workers 1954, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
18. Harvey R.J. The future of partial correlations as a means to reduce halo in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology 1954, 67:171-176.
19. ISO Sensory analysis: General guidance for the design of test rooms, ISO 8589 1988, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
20. Jacoby L.L. Incidental vs. intentional retrieval: Remembering and awareness as separate issues. Neuropsychology of memory 1984, Guilford Press, New York, NY. L.R. Squire, N. Butters (Eds.).
21. Jaeger S.R., Andani Z., Wakeling I.N., MacFie H.J.H. Consumer preferences for fresh and aged apples: A cross-cultural comparison. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9:355-366.
22. King S., Meiselman H.L. Development of a method to measure consumer emotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:168-177.
23. Krosnick J.A., Alwin D.F. An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly 1987, 51:201-219.
24. Krosnick J. The impact of cognitive sophistication and attitude importance on response-order and question-order effects. Context effects in social and psychological research 1992, 203-218. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. N. Schwarz, S. Sudman (Eds.).
25. Krosnick J.A. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 1999, 50:537-567.
26. Lado J., Vicente E., Manzzioni A., Ares G. Application of a check-all-that-apply question for the evaluation of strawberry cultivars from a breeding program. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2010, 90:2268-2275.
27. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York, NY.
28. Lawless H.T., Sheng N., Knoops S.S.C.P. Multidimensional scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6:91-98.
29. Malhotra N. Completion time and response order effects in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2008, 72:914-934.
30. Manoukian E.B. Mathematical nonparametric statistics 1986, Gordon & Breach, New York, NY.
31. Meilgaard M., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory evaluation techniques 1999, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
32. Mela D.J. A comparison of single and concurrent evaluations of sensory and hedonic attributes. Journal of Food Science 1989, 54:1098-1100.
33. Meullenet, J. -F., Findlay, C. J., Tubbs, J. K., Larid, M., Kuttapan, V. A., Tokar, T., Oker, K., Lee, Y. S. (2009). Experimental consideration for the use of check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions to describe the sensory properties of orange juices. In 8th Pangborn sensory science symposium, July 26-30. Florence, Italy.
34. Moskowitz H.R., Krieger B. The contribution of sensory liking to overall liking: An analysis of six food categories. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6:83-90.
35. Moussaoui K.A., Varela P. Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:1088-1099.
36. Ojanpää H., Näsänen R., Kojo I. Eye movements in the visual search of word lists. Vision Research 2003, 42:1499-1512.
37. Pagès J. Multiple factor analysis: Main features and application to sensory data. Revista Colombiana de Estadística 2004, 27:1-26.
38. Pagès J. Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire Valley. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:642-649.
39. Parente M.E., Ares G., Manzoni A.V. Application of two consumer profiling techniques to cosmetic emulsions. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:685-705.
40. Parente M.E., Manzoni A.V., Ares G. External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers' responses to a check-all-that-apply question. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:158-166.
41. Péneau S., Brockhoff P.B., Escher F., Nuessli J. A comprehensive approach to evaluate the freshness of strawberries and carrots. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2007, 45:20-29.
42. Perrin L., Pagès J. Construction of a product space from the ultra-flash profiling method: Application to 10 red wines from the Loire Valley. Journal of Sensory Studies 2009, 24:372-395.
43. Plaehn D. CATA penalty/reward. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:141-152.
44. Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change 1986, Springer-Verlag, New York.
45. Popper R., Rosentock W., Schraidt M., Kroll B.J. The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:853-858.
46. R Development Core Team (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
47. Rasinski K.A., Mingay D., Bradburn N.M. Do respondents really " mark all that apply" on self-administered questions?. Public Opinion Quarterly 1994, 58:400-408.
48. Risvik E., McEwan J.A., Colwill J.S., Rogers R., Lyon D.H. Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 1994, 5:263-269.
49. Rosas-Nexticapa M., Angulo O., O'Mahony M. How well does the 9-point hedonic scale predict purchase frequency. Journal of Sensory Studies 2005, 20:313-331.
50. Schuman H., Presser S. Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments in question form, wording and context 1981, Academic Press, New York, NY.
51. Schwarz N., Hippler H.-J., Noelle-Neumann E. A cognitive model of response-order effects in survey measurement. Context effects in social and psychological research 1992, 187-220. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. N. Schwarz, S. Sudman (Eds.).
52. Simon H.A. Models of man 1957, Wiley, New York, NY.
53. Smyth J.D., Dillman D.A., Melani Christian L., Stern M.J. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2006, 70:66-77.
54. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Elsevier, Academic Press, San Diego, USA.
55. Strack F. " Order effects" in survey research: Activation and information functions in preceding questions. Context effects in social and psychological research 1992, 23-34. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. N. Schwarz, S. Sudman (Eds.).
56. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M. Asking questions 1992, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
57. ten Kleij F., Musters P.A.D. Text analysis of open-ended survey responses: A complementary method to preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:43-52.
58. Teillet E., Schlich P., Urbano C., Cordelle S., Guichard E. Sensory methodologies and the taste of water. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:967-976.
59. Vickers Z.M., Christensen C.M., Fahrenholtz S.K., Gengler I.M. Effect of questionnaire design and the number of samples tasted on hedonic ratings. Journal of Sensory Studies 1993, 8:189-200.