Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on consumer perception: CATA, CATA with intensity and Napping®

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 32, Issue , 2014, Pages 160-166

  Reinbach, Helene C ^a   Giacalone, Davide ^a   Ribeiro, Leticia Machado ^a   Bredie, Wender L P ^a   Frøst, Michael Bom ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Check all that apply; Consumer perception; Descriptive profiling; Fast sensory methods; Multivariate statistics; Napping

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887821765     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.02.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Adams J., Williams S., Lancaster B., Foley M. Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. 7th Pangborn sensory science symposium 2007, Hyatt Regency, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
2. Ares G., Deliza R., Barreiro C., Gimenez A., Gambaro A. Comparison of two sensory profiling techniques based on consumer perception. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:417-426.
3. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G. Identifying ideal products using three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:581-591.
4. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Gimenez A. Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange-flavored powdered drinks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011, 46:1600-1608.
5. Bruzzone F., Ares G., Gimenez A. Consumers' texture perception of milk desserts. II - Comparison with trained assessors' data. Journal of Texture Studies 2012, 43:214-226.
6. Dairou V., Sieffermann J.M. A comparison of 14 jams characterized by conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67:826-834.
7. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P.B., Meinert L., Aaslyng M.D., Bredie W.L.P. Rapid descriptive sensory methods - Comparison of Free Multiple Sorting, Partial Napping, Napping, Flash Profiling and conventional profiling. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:267-277.
8. Dooley L., Lee Y., Meullenet J. 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.
9. Ennis D.M., Ennis J.M. Interpreting applicability scores. IFP Press 2011, 14(4):3-4.
10. Giacalone D., Bredie W.L.P., Frøst M.B. "All-in-one test" (AI1): A rapid and easily applicable approach to consumer product testing. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 27:108-111.
11. Giacalone, D., Machado Ribeiro, L., & Frøst, M. B. (forthcoming). Consumer-based product profiling: Application of partial Napping for sensory characterization of specialty beers by novices and experts. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing (accepted manuscript).
12. Krosnick J.A. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1991, 5:213-236.
13. Lado J., Vicente E., Manzoni 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.
14. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York, NY. 2nd ed.
15. 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.
16. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25:1-18.
17. MacFie H.J., Bratchell N., Greenhoff N.K., Vallis I.V. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1989, 4:129-148.
18. Martens H., Martens M. Modified jack-knife estimation of parameter uncertainty in bilinear modelling by partial least squares regression (PLSR). Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11:5-16.
19. Martens H., Martens M. Multivariate analysis of quality: An introduction 2001, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, West Sussex, England. 1st ed.
20. Meyners M. Permutation tests: Are there differences in product liking?. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:345-351.
21. Nestrud M.A., Lawless H.T. Perceptual mapping of apples and cheeses using projective mapping and sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:390-405.
22. Pagès J. Direct collection of sensory distances: Application to the evaluation of ten white wines of the Loire Valley. Sciences des Aliments 2003, 23:679-688.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Perrin L., Pages 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.
26. 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.
27. Risvik E., McEwan J.A., Rødbotten M. Evaluation of sensory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:63-71.
28. V-coefficient. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C -Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
29. Rosenberg S., Kim M.P. Method of sorting as a data-gathering procedure in multivariate research. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1975, 10:489-502.
30. Simon H.A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1955, 69:99-118.
31. Williams A.A., Langron S.P. The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1984, 35:558-568.