Rate-all-that-apply (RATA) with semi-trained assessors: An investigation of the method reproducibility at assessor-, attribute- and panel-level

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 51, Issue , 2016, Pages 65-71

  Giacalone, Davide ^a   Hedelund, Pia Ingholt ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b DANISH TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Assessor reproducibility; Attribute stability; Chocolate; Panel agreement; RATA; Rate all that apply; Sensory profiling

Indexed keywords

EID: 84960510912     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.017     Document Type: Article

References (25)

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 Proceedings of the 7th pangborn sensory science symposium, Hyatt Regency, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
2. Ares G., Antúnez L., Giménez A., Roigard C.M., Pineau B., Hunter D.C., et al. Further investigations into the reproducibility of check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions for sensory product characterization elicited by consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 36:111-121.
3. Ares G., Bruzzone F., Vidal L., Cadena R.S., Giménez A., Pineau B., et al. Evaluation of a rating-based variant of check-all-that-apply questions: Rate-all-that-apply (RATA). Food Quality and Preference 2014, 36:87-95.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Beckett S.T. Conching. Industrial chocolate manufacture and use 2009, Wiley-Blackwell, York, UK. 4th ed. S.T. Beckett (Ed.).
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. Briones V., Aguilera J.M. Image analyses of changes in surface color of chocolate. Food Research International 2005, 38:87-94.
10. 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. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 2008, 14:104-115.
11. Civille G.V., Carr B.T., Munõz A.M. Sensory evaluation in quality control 1992, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
12. Costell E. A comparison of sensory methods in quality control. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:341-353.
13. Escoufier B., Pagès J. Multiple factor analysis (AFMULT package). Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 1994, 18:121-140.
14. ISO 8586-1. (1993). Sensory analysis - general guidance for the selection, training, and monitoring of assessors. Part 1. International Organization for Standardization.
15. Jaeger S.R., Ares G. RATA questions are not likely to bias hedonic scores. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 44:157-161.
16. Jaeger S.R., Chheang S.L., Yin J., 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., Giménez 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. Lawless H.T., Glatter S. Consistency of multidimensional scaling models derived from odor sorting. Journal of Sensory Studies 1990, 5:217-230.
19. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25:1-18.
20. Meyners M., Castura J.C. Check-all-that-apply questions. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling 2014, 271-305. CRC Press, Boca Raton. P. Varela, G. Ares (Eds.).
21. R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
22. Reinbach H.C., Giacalone D., Ribeiro L.M., Bredie W.L.P., Frøst M.B. Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on consumer perception: CATA, CATA with intensity and napping®. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:160-166.
23. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV- coefficient. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics) 1976, 25:257-265.
24. 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.
25. Worch T., Piqueras-Fiszman B. Contributions to assess the reproducibility and the agreement of respondents in CATA tasks. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 40:137-146.