Comparison of check-all-that-apply and forced-choice Yes/No question formats for sensory characterisation

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 35, Issue , 2014, Pages 32-40

  Jaeger, Sara R ^a   Cadena, Rafael S ^b   Torres Moreno, Miriam ^c   Antúnez, Lucía ^b   Vidal, Leticia ^b   Giménez, Ana ^b   Hunter, Denise C ^a   Beresford, Michelle K ^a   Kam, Karrie ^a   Yin, David ^a   Paisley, Amy G ^a   Chheang, Sok L ^a   Ares, Gastón ^b  

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

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIC CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF CATALONIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Applicability scoring; CATA; Consumer research; Research methodology; Yes No questions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894683206     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.02.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Abdi H. Congruence. Congruence coefficient, RV coefficient, and mantel coefficient. Encyclopedia of research design 2010, 222-229. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. N.J. Salkind, D.M. Dougherty, B. Frey (Eds.).
2. 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. Minneapolis, USA, 12-16 August, 2007.
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., 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.
5. 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.
6. 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(2):114-127.
7. 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.
8. Blancher G., Clavier B., Egoroff C., Duineveld K., Parcon J. A method to investigate the stability of a sorting map. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 23:36-43.
9. 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.
10. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2007, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, [ISBN: 3-900051-07-0].
11. 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.
12. Driesener C., Romaniuk J. Comparing methods of brand image measurement. International Journal of Marketing Research 2006, 48:681-698.
13. Ennis D.M., Ennis J.M. Analysis and Thurstonian scaling of applicability scores. Journal of Sensory Studies 2013, 28:188-193.
14. Fisher R.A. Statistical methods for research workers 1954, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
15. Jaeger S.R., Ares G. Lack of evidence that concurrent sensory product characterisation using CATA questions bias hedonic scores. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 35:1-5.
16. Jaeger S.R., Chheang S.L., Jin D., 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.
17. 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.
18. Josse, J., Husson, F., & Pagès, J. (2007). Testing the significance of the RV coefficient. In IASC 07, August 30th - September 1st (2007), Aveiro. International Association for Statistical Computing: Portugal.
19. Krosnick J.A. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 1999, 50:537-567.
20. Lawess H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York, NY.
21. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25(1):1-18.
22. Lee Y., Findlay C., Meullenet J.F. Experimental consideration for the use of check-all-that-apply questions to describe the sensory properties of orange juices. International Journal of Food Sciences and Technology 2013, 48:215-219.
23. Manoukian E.B. Mathematical nonparametric statistics 1986, Gordon & Breach, New York, NY.
24. Meyners M., Castura J.C., Carr B.T. Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:309-319.
25. Murray J.M., Delahunty C.M., Baxter I.A. Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International 2001, 34:461-471.
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. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
28. Smyth J.D., Dillman D.A., Christian L.M., Stern M.J. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2006, 70:66-77.
29. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M. Asking questions 1982, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
30. Valentin D., Chollet S., Lelièvre M., Abdi H. Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2012, 47:1563-1578.
31. 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.