Check-all-that-apply (CATA) responses elicited by consumers: Within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product characterizations

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 56-67

  Jaeger, Sara R ^a   Chheang, Sok Leang ^a   Yin, Ji ^a   Bava, Christina M ^a   Gimenez, Ana ^b   Vidal, Leticia ^b   Ares, Gastón ^b  

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

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

Author keywords

Attribute stability; Checklist method; Within assessor reproducibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877879579     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.04.009     Document Type: Article

References (43)

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. Antmann G., Ares G., Varela P., Salvador A., Coste B., Fiszman S.M. Consumers' creaminess concept perception: A cross-cultural study in three Spanish-speaking countries. Journal of Texture Studies 2011, 42:50-60.
3. 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.
4. Ares G., Bruzzone F., Giménez A. Is a consumer panel able to reliably evaluate the texture of dairy desserts using unstructured intensity scales? Evaluation of global and individual performance. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:363-370.
5. Ares, G., Bruzzone, F., & Giménez, G. (2010). Identifying consumers' texture vocabulary of milk desserts. Application of a check-all-that-apply question and free listing. Brazilian Journal of Food Technology, 6° SENSIBER, 19-21 de agosto de, 98-105.
6. Ares G., Giménez A., Barreiro C., Gámbaro A. Use of an open-ended question to identify drivers of liking of milk desserts. Comparison with preference mapping techniques. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:286-294.
7. Ares G., Jaeger S.R. Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:141-153.
8. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Gimenez 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.
9. Bécue-Bertaut M., Pagès J. A principal axes method for comparing contingency tables: MFACT. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2004, 45:481-503.
10. Brockhoff P., Schlich P. Handling replications in discrimination tests. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9:303-312.
11. Bruzzone F., Ares G., Giménez A. Consumers' texture perception of milk desserts. II - Comparison with trained assessors' data. Journal of Texture Studies 2012, 43:214-226.
12. Campo E., Ballester J., Langlois J., Dacremont C., Valentin D. Comparison of conventional descriptive analysis and a citation frequency-based descriptive method for odor profiling: An application to Burgundy Pinot noir wines. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:44-55.
13. Campo E., Do B.V., Ferreira V., Valentin D. Aroma properties of young Spanish monovarietal white wines: A study using sorting task, list of terms and frequency of citation. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 2008, 14:104-115.
14. Cardello, A.V., Jaeger, S.R., Goldman, A., Bredie, W.L.P., & Lesher, L.L. (2012a). Stimulus sensitivity of the 9-pt hedonic scale vs. two unipolar like/dislike scales. In 5th european conference on sensory and consumer research, 9-12 September 2012, Bern, Switzerland.
15. Cardello A.V., Meiselman H.L., Schutz H.G., Craig C., Given Z., Lesher L.L., et al. Measuring emotional responses to foods and food names using questionnaires. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:243-250.
16. Carmines E.G., Zeller R.A. Reliability and validity assessment 1979, Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA.
17. Cartier R., Rytz A., Lecomte A., Poblete F., Krystlik J., Belin E., et al. Sorting procedure as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory map. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:562-571.
18. Chollet S., Lelièvre M., Abdi H., Valentin D. Sort and beer: Everything you wanted to know about the sorting task but did not dare to ask. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:507-520.
19. 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.
20. Ennis D.M., Ennis J.M. Analysis and thurstonian scaling of applicability scores. Journal of Sensory Studies 2013, 10.1111/joss.12034.
21. Josse, J., Husson, F., & Pagès, J.(2007).Testing the significance of the RV coefficient.In IASC 07, August 30th - September 1st Aveiro 2007, Portugal, International Association for Statistical Computing.
22. Krosnick J.A. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 1999, 50:537-567.
23. 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.
24. Lawless H.T., Glatter S. Consistency of multidimensional scaling models derived from odor sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 1990, 5:217-230.
25. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York, NY.
26. Le Fur Y., Mercurio V., Moio I., Blanquet J., Meunier J.M. A new approach to examine the relationships between sensory and gas chromatography-olfactometry data using generalized procrustes analysis applied to six French Chardonnay wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2003, 51:443-452.
27. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25(1):1-18.
28. McCloskey I.P., Sylvan M., Arrhenius S.P. Descriptive analysis for wine quality experts determining appellations by Chardonnay wine aroma. Journal of Sensory Studies 1996, 11:49-67.
29. McEwan J.A., Colwill J.S., Thomson D.M.H. The application of two free choice profiling methods to investigate the sensory characteristics of chocolate. Journal of Sensory Studies 1989, 3:271-286.
30. Meyners M. Proper and improper use and interpretation of Beta-binomial models in the analysis of replicated difference and preference tests. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:741-750.
31. Perrin L., Pagès J. A methodology for the analysis of sensory typicality judgments. Journal of Sensory Studies 2009, 24:749-773.
32. Plaehn D. CATA penalty/reward. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:141-152.
33. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2007, [ISBN 3-900051-07-0], R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
34. 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.
35. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: the RV coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
36. Smyth J.D., Dillman D.A., Christian L.M., Stern M.J. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2006, 70:66-67.
37. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, USA.
38. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M. Asking questions 1982, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
39. Sune F., Lacroix P., Huon de Kermadec F. A comparison of sensory attribute use by children and experts to evaluate chocolate. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:545-553.
40. Thamke I., Dürrschmid K., Rohm H. Sensory description of dark chocolates by consumers. LWT-Food Science and Technology 2009, 42:534-539.
41. Tournier C., Martin C., Guichard E., Issanchou S., Sulmont-Rosse C. Contribution to the understanding of consumers' creaminess concept: A sensory and a verbal approach. International Dairy Journal 2007, 17:555-564.
42. Varela P., Ares G. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International 2012, 48:893-908.
43. Yu C.H. Test-retest reliability. Encyclopedia of social measurement 2005, Vol. 3:777-784. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.