Systematic comparison of hedonic ranking and rating methods demonstrates few practical differences

Journal of Food Science

Volumn 78, Issue 8, 2013, Pages

  Kozak, Marcin ^a   Cliff, Margaret A ^b  

^a WARSAW UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Poland)

^b AGRICULTURE AND AGRI FOOD CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Consumer studies; Hedonic rating; Hedonic score; Rank analysis; Ranking

Indexed keywords

MALUS X DOMESTICA;

YOGHURT;

ARTICLE; CONSUMER; CONSUMER STUDIES; FOOD PREFERENCE; HEDONIC RATING; HEDONIC SCORE; HUMAN; MALUS; RANK ANALYSIS; RANKING; TASTE;

CONSUMER STUDIES; HEDONIC RATING; HEDONIC SCORE; RANK ANALYSIS; RANKING;

CONSUMER SATISFACTION; FOOD PREFERENCES; HUMANS; MALUS; TASTE; YOGURT;

EID: 84882696482     PISSN: 00221147     EISSN: 17503841     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.12173     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Barylko-Pikielna N, Matuszewska I, Jeruszka M, Kozlowska K, Brzozowska A, Roszkowski, W. 2004. Discriminability and appropriateness of category scaling versus ranking methods to study sensory preferences in elderly. Food Qual Pref 15:167-75.
2. Boumaza R, Huché-Thélier L, Demotes-Mainard S, Le Coz E, Leduc N, Pelleschi-Travier S, Qannari EM, Sakr S, Santagostini P, Symoneaux R, Guérin V. 2010. Sensory profiles and preference analysis in ornamental horticulture: The case of the rosebush. Food Qual Pref 21:987-97.
3. Cohen SH, Neira L. 2003. Measuring preference for product benefits across countries: overcoming scale usage bias with maximum difference scaling. ESOMAR 2003 Latin America Conference Proceedings: Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
4. Gay C, Mead R. 1992. A statistical appraisal of the problem of sensory measurement. J Sens Stud 7:205-28.
5. Greenhoff K, MacFie JHJ. 1999. Preference mapping in practice. In: MacFie HJJ, Thomson DMH, editors. Measurement of food preferences. London, UK: Blackie Academic. p 137-66.
6. Hollander M, Wolfe DA. 1973. Non parametric statistical methods. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons Inc. p 503.
7. King SC, Meiselman HL, Thomas Carr B. 2013. Measuring emotions associated with foods: important elements of questionnaire and test design. Food Qual Pref 28:8-16.
8. Jones LV, Peryam DR, Thurstone LL. 1955. Development of a scale for measuring soldier's food preferences. Food Res 20:512-20.
9. LaBar KS, Cabeza R. 2006. Cognitive neuroscience of emotional memory. Nat Rev Neurosci 7:54-64.
10. Lawless HT, Heymann H. 1999. Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers Inc.
11. Lawless HT. 2010a. Commentary on 'Comparative performance of the nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal preference maps'. Food Qual Pref 21:165-66.
12. Lawless HT, Cardello AV, Chapman KW, Lesher LL, Given Z, Schutz HG. 2010b. A comparison of the effectiveness of hedonic scales and end-anchor compression effects. J Sens Stud 25:18-34.
13. Lawless HT, Popper R, Kroll BJ. 2010c. A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale. Food Qual Pref 21:4-12.
14. Lim J. 2011. Hedonic scaling: a review of methods and theory. Food Qual Pref 22:733-47.
15. Lim J, Wood A, Green BG. 2009. Derivation and evaluation of a labeled hedonic scale. Chem Senses 34:739-51.
16. Logue AW. 1991. The psychology of eating and drinking: an introduction. 2nd ed. New York NY: W. H. Freeman.
17. Louviere JJ. 1991 Best-worst scaling: a model for the largest difference judgments. Working paper. Univ. of Alberta.
18. Louviere JJ. 1992. Maximum difference conjoint: Theory, methods and cross-task comparisons with ratings-based and yes/no full profile conjoint. Unpublished Paper, Dept. of Marketing, Eccles School of Business, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City.
19. Manzocco L, Rumignani A, Lagazio C. 2013. Emotional response to fruit salads with different visual quality. Food Qual Pref 28:17-22.
20. Mattes RD. 1994. Influences on acceptance of bitter foods and beverages. Physiol Behav 56:1229-36.
21. McEwan J. 1996. Preference mapping for product optimization. In: Naes T, Risvik E, editors. Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science. London, UK: Elsevier Applied Science.
22. O'Mahony M. 1986. Sensory evaluation of food: Statistical methods and procedures. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc. p 156.
23. Pliner P. 1982. The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite 3:283-90.
24. Poste LM, Mackie DA, Butler G, Larmond E. 1991. Laboratory methods for sensory analysis of food. Ottawa Canada: Research Branch Publication 1864/E.
25. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, Available from: http://www.R-project.org. Accessed June 12, 2013.
26. Rayner JCW, Best DJ, Brockhoff PB, Rayner GD. 2005. Nonparametrics for sensory science. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishing.
27. Rozin P, Fallon AE. 1981. The acquisition of likes and dislikes for foods. In: Solms J, Hall RL, editors. Criteria of food acceptance: how man chooses what he eats. A symposium. Zurich: Forster. p 35-48.
28. Sarkar D. 2008. Lattice: Multivariate data visualization with R. New York: Springer-Verlag.
29. Schutz HG, Cardello AV. 2001. A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessingfood liking/disliking. J Sens Stud 16:117-59.
30. Stone H, Sidel JL. 2004. Sensory evaluation practices. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. p 78.
31. Vie A, Gulli D, O'Mahony M. 1991. Alternative hedonic measures. J Food Sci 56:1-5.
32. Villanueva NDM, Petenate AJ, Da Silva MAAP. 2000. Performance of three affective methods and diagnosis of the ANOVA model. Food Qual Pref 11:363-70.
33. Villanueva NDM, Petenate AJ, Da Silva MAAP. 2005. Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Qual Pref 16:691-703.
34. Villanueva NDM, Da Silva MAAP. 2009. Comparative performance of the nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal preference maps. Food Qual Pref 20:1-12.