Lack of evidence that concurrent sensory product characterisation using CATA questions bias hedonic scores

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 35, Issue , 2014, Pages 1-5

  Jaeger, Sara R ^a   Ares, Gastón ^b  

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

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

Author keywords

CATA; Consumer research; Hedonic scale; Research context; Sensory properties

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893385859     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (23)

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: Poster presented at the 7th Pangborn sensory science symposium. Minneapolis, MN, USA (12-16 August). Delegate Manual.
2. Ares G., Etchemendy E., Antúnez L., Vidal L., Giménez A., Jaeger S.R. Visual attention by consumers to check-all-that-apply questions: Insights to support methodological development. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:210-220.
3. 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.
4. Ares G., Jaeger S.R., Bava C.M., Chheang S.L., Jin D., Gimenez A., et al. CATA questions for sensory product characterization: Raising awareness of biases. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:114-127.
5. Ares G., Tárrega A., Izquierdo L., Jaeger S.R. Investigation of the number of consumers necessary to obtain stable sample and descriptor configurations from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 31:135-141.
6. Earthy P.J., MacFie H.J.H., Hedderley D. Effect of question order on sensory perception and preference in central location trials. Journal of Sensory Studies 1997, 12:215-237.
7. Ennis D.M., Ennis J.M. Analysis and Thurstonian scaling of applicability scores. Journal of Sensory Studies 2013, 28:188-193.
8. Gacula M., Mohan P., Faller J., Pollack L., Moskowitz H.R. Questionnaire practice: What happens when the JAR scale is placed between two "overall" acceptance scales?. Journal of Sensory Studies 2008, 23:136-147.
9. Jaeger S.R., Chheang S.L., Jin Y., Bava C.M., Gimenez A., Vidal L., et al. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) responses elicited by consumers: Within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product characterizations. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:56-67.
10. Jaeger S.R., Giacalone D., Roigard C.M., Pineau B., Vidal L., Gimenez A., et al. Investigation of bias of hedonic scores when co-eliciting product attribute information using CATA questions. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:242-249.
11. Krosnick J.A. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1991, 5:213-236.
12. Krosnick J.A. 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.).
13. Krosnick J.A. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 1999, 50:537-567.
14. Mela D.J. A comparison of single and concurrent evaluation of sensory and hedonic attributes. Journal of Food Science 1989, 54:1098-1100.
15. Popper R., Rosenstock W., Schraidt M., Kroll B.J. The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:853-858.
16. Prescott J., Lee S.M., Kim K. Analytic approaches to evaluation modify hedonic responses. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:391-393.
17. Development Core Team R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [ISBN 3-900051-07-0] 2007, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
18. 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.
19. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Elsevier, Academic Press, San Diego, USA.
20. Strack F. "Order effects" in survey research: Activation and information functions of preceding questions. Context effects in social and psychological research 1992, 23-34. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. N. Schwarz, S. Sudman (Eds.).
21. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M. Asking questions 1992, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
22. 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.
23. Vickers Z.M., Christensen C.M., Fahrenholtz S.K., Gengler I.M. Effect of the questionnaire design and the number of samples taste on hedonic ratings. Journal of Sensory Studies 1993, 8:189-200.