Analysis and thurstonian scaling of applicability scores

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 188-193

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

^a Institute for Perception   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MCNEMAR'S TESTS; SCALE ESTIMATION; SENSITIVE METHOD; SURVEY RESEARCH; TELEPHONE SURVEY; TWO-PRODUCT;

RESEARCH;

SURVEYS;

EID: 84878635416     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/joss.12034     Document Type: Article

References (49)

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(2), 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(5), 425-434.
3. Ares, G. and Jaeger, S.R. 2013. Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Qual. Prefer. 28(1), 141-153.
4. Ares, G., Deliza, R., Barreiro, C., Giménez, A. and Gámbaro, A. 2010a. Comparison of two sensory profiling techniques based on consumer perception. Food Qual. Prefer. 21(4), 417-426.
5. Ares, G., Bàrreiro, C., Deliza, R., Gimenez, A. and Gambàro, A. 2010b. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. J. Sensory Studies 25, 67-86.
6. Ares, G., Varela, P., Rado, G. and Giménez, A. 2011. Identifying ideal products using three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external preference mapping. Food Qual. Prefer. 22(6), 581-591.
7. Bi, J. 2006. Sensory Discrimination Tests and Measurements: Statistical Principles, Procedures and Tables, Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA.
8. Böckenholt, U. 1992. Thurstonian models for partial ranking data. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 43, 31-49.
9. Brockhoff, P. and Christensen, R. 2010. Thurstonian models for sensory discrimination tests as generalized linear models. Food Qual. Prefer. 21(3), 330-338.
10. Chapman, K. and Lawless, H. 2005. Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. J. Sensory Studies 20(5), 454-468.
11. Christensen, R. and Brockhoff, P. 2009. Estimation and inference in the same-different test. Food Qual. Prefer. 20(7), 514-524.
12. Christensen, R., Cleaver, G. and Brockhoff, P. 2011. Statistical and Thurstonian models for the A-not A protocol with and without sureness. Food Qual. Prefer. 22(6), 542-549.
13. Christensen, R., Lee, H. and Brockhoff, P. 2012. Estimation of the Thurstonian model for the 2-AC protocol. Food Qual. Prefer. 24(1), 119-128.
14. Chung, L., Chung, S.-J., Kim, J.-Y., Kim, K.-O., O'Mahony, M., Vickers, Z., Cha, S.-M. 2012. Comparing the liking for Korean style salad dressings and beverages between US and Korean consumers: Effects of sensory and non-sensory factors. Food Qual. Prefer. 26(1), 105-118.
15. Dooley, L., Lee, Y. and Meullenet, J. 2010. 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 Qual. Prefer. 21(4), 394-401.
16. Ennis, D. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44, 114, 116-117.
17. Ennis, D. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sens. Stud. 8, 353-370.
18. Ennis, D. and Ennis, J. 2012a. Accounting for no difference/preference responses or ties in choice experiments. Food Qual. Prefer. 23, 13-17.
19. Ennis, D. and Ennis, J. 2013. A Thurstonian model for ranks with rank-induced dependencies. J. Classif. http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id= DOI: 10.1007/s00357-013-9125-8.
20. Ennis, D.M. and O'Mahony, M. 1995. Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 1-10.
21. Ennis, D.M., Mullen, K. and Fritjers, J.E.R. 1988. Variants of the method of triads: Unidimensional Thurstonian models. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 41, 25-36.
22. Ennis, J. and Ennis, D. 2012b. A comparison of three commonly used methods for treating no preference votes. J. Sensory Studies 27(2), 123-129.
23. Ennis, J. and Jesionka, V. 2011. The power of sensory discrimination testing methods revisited. J. Sensory Studies 26(5), 371-382.
24. Ennis, J., Ennis, D., Yip, D. and O'Mahony, M. 1998. Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 51, 205-215.
25. Giacalone, D., Bredie, W.L.P. and Frøst, M.B. 2012. "All-In-One Test" (AI1): A rapid and easily applicable approach to consumer product testing. Food Qual. Prefer. 27, 108-119.
26. Hacher, M.J. and Ratcliff, R. 1979. A revised table of d′ for m-alternative forced choice. Percept. Psychophys 26, 168-170.
27. Kim, H., Lee, H., O'Mahony, M. and Kim, K. 2008. Paired preference tests using placebo pairs and different response options for chips, orange juice, and cookies. J. Sensory Studies 23(3), 417-438.
28. King, S.C. and Meiselman, H.L. 2010. Development of a method to measure consumer emotions associated with foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 21(2), 168-177.
29. King, S.C., Meiselman, H.L. and Carr, B.T. 2013. Measuring emotions associated with foods: Important elements of questionnaire and test design. Food Qual. Prefer. 28(1), 8-16.
30. Krosnick, J.A. 1991. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 5, 213-236.
31. Krosnick, J.A. 1999. Survey research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50, 537-567.
32. Krosnick, J.A. and Alwin, D.F. 1987. An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opin. Q. 51, 201-219.
33. Loh, K. and Ennis, D.M. 1982. Glossary of attributes. Philip Morris Technical Report #82-288. Downloaded from http://www.pmdocs.com/pdf/2001298236_8263_120_201326123634.pdf (accessed February 6, 2013).
34. McNemar, Q. 1947. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 12(2), 153-157.
35. Naes, T., Brockhoff, P. and Tomic, O. 2010. Statistics for Sensory and Consumer Science, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, West Sussex, UK.
36. Ng, M., Chaya, C. and Hort, J. 2013. Beyond liking: Comparing the measurement of emotional response using EsSense Profile and consumer defined check-all-that-apply methodologies. Food Qual. Prefer. 28(1), 193-205.
37. Pagano, M. and Gauvreau, K. 2000. Principles of Biostatistics, 2nd Ed., pp. 349-352, Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.
38. Parente, M.E., Ares, G. and Manzoni, A.V. 2010. Application of two consumer profiling techniques to cosmetic emulsions. J. Sensory Studies 25(5), 685-705.
39. Parente, M.E., Manzoni, A.V. and Ares, G. 2011. External preference mapping of commerical antiaging creams based on consumers' responses to a Check-All-That-Apply question. J. Sensory Studies 26(2), 158-166.
40. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Ares, G., Alcaide-Marzal, J. and Diego-Más, J.A. 2011. Comparing older and younger users' perceptions of mobile phones and watches using cata questions and preference mapping on the design characteristics. J. Sensory Studies 26(1), 1-12.
41. Plaehn, D. 2011. CATA penalty/reward. Food Qual. Prefer. 24(1), 141-152.
42. Puyares, V., Ares, G. and Carrau, F. 2010. Searching a specific bottle for Tannat wine using a check-all-that apply question and conjoint analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 21(7), 684-691.
43. Rousseau, B. and Ennis, D.M. 2001. A Thurstonian model for the dual pair (4IAX) discrimination method. Percept. Psychophys 63, 1083-1090.
44. Rousseau, B. and Ennis, D.M. 2002. The multiple dual pair method. Percept. Psychophys 64, 1008-1014.
45. Smyth, J.D., Dillman, D.A., Christian, L.M. and Stern, M.J. 2006. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in surveys. Public Opin. Q. 70(1), 66-67.
46. Sudman, S. and Bradbury, N.M. 1982. Asking Questions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
47. Sung, Y.-E., Lee, H.-S., O'Mahony, M. and Kim, K.-O. 2011. Paired Preference Tests: Use of Placebo Stimuli With Liking and Buying Preferences. J. Sensory Studies 26(2), 106-117.
48. Thurstone, L.L. 1927. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273-286.
49. Varela, P., Ares, G., Giménez, A. and Gámbaro, A. 2010. Influence of brand information on consumers' expectations and liking of powdered drinks in central location tests. Food Qual. Prefer. 21(7), 873-880.