Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions with consumers in practice: Experimental considerations and impact on outcome

Rapid Sensory Profiling Techniques and Related Methods: Applications in New Product Development and Consumer Research

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 227-245

  Ares, G ^a   Jaeger, S R ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

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

Author keywords

CATA; Check lists; Check all that apply questions; Consumer research; Sensory characterization

Indexed keywords

CHARACTERIZATION;

CATA; CHECK-ALL-THAT-APPLY QUESTIONS; CHECK-LISTS; CONSUMER RESEARCH; SENSORY CHARACTERIZATION;

SENSORY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84927736595     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1533/9781782422587.2.227     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. Abdi H., Williams L.J. Correspondence analysis. Encyclopedia of Research Design 2010, 267-278. Sage, Thousand Oaks. N.J. Salkind, D.M. Dougherty, B. Frey (Eds.).
2. Adams J., Williams A., Lancaster B., Foley M. Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks 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. J Sensory Stud 2010, 25:67-86.
4. Ares G., Giménez A., Bruzzone F. Identifying consumers' texture vocabulary of milk desserts. Application of a check-all-that-apply question and free listing". Braz J Food Technol 2010, 98-105. 6 SENSIBER, 19-21 de agosto de 2010. 10.4260/BJFT201114E000112.
5. Ares G., Giménez A., Gámbaro A. Understanding consumers' perception of conventional and functional yogurts using word association and hard laddering. Food Qual Prefer 2008, 19:636-643.
6. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Giménez A. Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange flavoured powdered drinks. Int J Food Sci Technol 2011, 46:1600-1608.
7. Ares G., Jaeger S.R. Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Qual Prefer 2013, 28:141-153.
8. Ares G., Jaeger S.R., Bava C.M., Chheang S.L., Jin D., Giménez A., Vidal L., Fiszman S.M., Varela P. CATA questions for sensory product characterization: Raising awareness of biases. Food Qual Prefer 2013, 30:114-127.
9. Ares G., Dauber C., Fernández E., Giménez A., Varela P. Penalty analysis based on CATA questions to identify drivers of liking and directions for product reformulation. Food Qual Prefer 2014, 32:65-76.
10. 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 Qual Prefer 2014, 31:135-141.
11. Bayarri S., Carbonell I., Barrios E.X., Costell E. Impact of sensory differences on consumer acceptability of yoghurt and yoghurt-like products. Int Dairy J 2011, 21:111-118.
12. Blancher G., Clavier B., Egoroff C., Duineveld K., Parcon J. A method to investigate the stability of a sorting map. Food Qual Prefer 2012, 23:36-43.
13. Bruzzone F., Ares G., Giménez A. Consumers 'texture perception of milk desserts. II - Comparison with trained assessors' data. J Texture Stud 2012, 43:214-226.
14. Campo E., Do B.V., Ferreira V., Valentin D. Aroma properties of young Spanish monovarietal white wines: A study using sorting task, list of terms and frequency of citation. Aust J Grape Wine Res 2008, 14:104-115.
15. Campo E., Ballester J., Langlois J., Dacremont C., Valentin D. Comparison of conventional descriptive analysis and a citation frequency-based descriptive method for odor profiling: An application to Burgundy Pinot noir wines. Food Qual Prefer 2010, 21:44-55.
16. Castura J.C. Do panellists donkey vote in sensory choose-all-that-apply questions?" 2009.
17. Cuadras C.M., Cuadras D. A parametric approach to correspondence analysis. Linear Algebra Appl 2006, 417:64-74.
18. 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 Qual Prefer 2010, 21:394-401.
19. Driesener C., Romaniuk J. Comparing methods of brand image measurement. Int J Market Res 2006, 48:681-698.
20. Ennis D.M., Ennis J.M. Analysis and Thurstonian scaling of applicability scores. J Sensory Stud 2013, 28:188-193.
21. Greenacre M. Correspondence Analysis in Practice 2007, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton.
22. Hough G., Wakeling I., Mucci A., Chambers E., Méndez Gallardo I., Alves L.R. Number of consumers necessary for sensory acceptability tests. Food Qual Prefer 2006, 17:522-526.
23. Jacoby L.L. Incidental vs. intentional retrieval: Remembering and awareness as separate issues". Neuropsychology of Memory 1984, Guilford Press, New York. L.R. Squire, N. Butters (Eds.).
24. Jaeger S.R., Chheang S.L., Yin L., Bava C.M., Giménez A., Vidal L., Ares G. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) responses elicited by consumers: Within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product characterizations. Food Qual Prefer 2013, 30:56-67.
25. Jaeger S.R., Giacalone D., Roigard C.M., Pineau B., Vidal L., Giménez A., Frøst M.B., Ares G. Investigation of bias of hedonic scores when co-eliciting product attribute information using CATA questions. Food Qual Prefer 2013, 30:242-249.
26. 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. N. Schwarz, S. Sudman (Eds.).
27. Krosnick J.A. Survey research. Annu Rev Psychol 1999, 50:537-567.
28. Krosnick J.A., Alwin D.F. An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response order effects in survey measurement. Public Opin Quart 1987, 51:201-219.
29. Lagrange V., Norback J.P. Product optimization and the acceptor set size. J Sensory Stud 1987, 2:119-136.
30. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory Evaluation of Food. Principles and Practices 2010, Springer, New York.
31. Le Fur Y., Mercurio V., Moio I., Blanquet J., Meunier J.M. A new approach to examine the relationships between sensory and gas chromatography olfactometry data using generalized procrustes analysis applied to six French Chardonnay wines. J Agric Food Chem 2003, 51:443-452.
32. 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. Int J Food Sci Technol 2013, 48:215-219.
33. Mammasse N., Schlich P. Adequate number of consumers in a liking test. Insights from resampling in seven studies. Food Qual Prefer 2014, 31:124-128.
34. Manoukian E.B. Mathematical Nonparametric Statistics 1986, Gordon & Breach, New York.
35. McCloskey I.P., Sylvan M., Arrhenius S.P. Descriptive analysis for wine quality experts determining appellations by Chardonnay wine aroma. J Sensory Stud 1996, 11:49-67.
36. Meyners M., Castura J.C. Check-all-that apply questions. Novel Techniques in Sensory Characterization and Consumer Profiling 2014, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Boca Raton. P. Varela, G. Ares (Eds.).
37. Meyners M., Castura J.C., Carr B.T. Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Qual Prefer 2013, 30:309-319.
38. Moskowitz H.R. Base size in product testing: A psychophysical viewpoint and analysis. Food Qual Prefer 1997, 8:247-255.
39. Parente M.E., Ares G., Manzoni A.V. Application of two consumer profiling techniques to cosmetic emulsions. J Sensory Stud 2010, 25:685-705.
40. Parente M.E., Manzoni A.V., Ares G. External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers' responses to a check-all-that-apply question. J Sensory Stud 2011, 26:158-166.
41. Piqueras-Fiszman B., Jaeger S.R. The impact of evoked consumption contexts and appropriateness on emotion responses. Food Qual Prefer 2014, 32:277-288.
42. Plaehn D. CATA penalty/reward. Food Qual Prefer 2012, 24:141-152.
43. Pohjanheimo T., Sandell M. Explaining the liking for drinking yoghurt: The role of sensory quality, food choice motives, health concern and product information. Int Dairy J 2009, 19:459-466.
44. Popper R., Rosenstock W., Schraidt M., Kroll B.J. The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings. Food Qual Prefer 2004, 15:853-858.
45. Prescott J., Lee S.M., Kim K. Analytic approaches to evaluation modify hedonic responses. Food Qual Prefer 2011, 22:391-393.
46. Rasinski K.A., Mingay D., Bradburn N.M. Do respondents really mark all that apply on self-administered questions?". Public Opin Quart 1994, 58:400-408.
47. Reinbach H.C., Giacalone D., Machado Ribeiro L., Bredie W.L.B., Frøst M.B. Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on consumer perception: CATA, CATA with intensity and Napping®. Food Qual Prefer 2014, 32:160-166.
48. Smyth J.D., Dillman D.A., Christian L.M., Stern M.J. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opin Quart 2006, 70:66-77.
49. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory Evaluation Practices 2004, Academic Press, San Diego.
50. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M. Asking Questions 1992, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
51. Tate M.W., Brown S.M. Note on the Cochran Q test. J Am Stat Assoc 1970, 65:155-160.
52. Van Trijp H.C., Punter P.H., Mickartz F., Kruithof L. The quest for the ideal product: Comparing different methods and approaches. Food Qual Prefer 2007, 18:729-740.
53. Varela P., Ares G. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Res Int 2012, 48:893-908.
54. Williams E.J. Experimental designs for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Austral J Sci Res Ser A 1949, 2:149-168.
55. Williams A., Carr B.T., Popper R. Exploring analysis options for check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions 2011.
56. Xiong R., Meullenet J.F. A PLS dummy variable approach to assess the impact of JAR attributes on liking. Food Qual Prefer 2006, 17:188-198.