Comparison of rate-all-that-apply (RATA) and check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions across seven consumer studies

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 67, Issue , 2018, Pages 49-58

  Vidal, Leticia ^a   Ares, Gastón ^a   Hedderley, Duncan I ^b   Meyners, Michael ^c   Jaeger, Sara R ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

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

^c PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumer profiling; Research methodology; Sensory characterization

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009820890     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.013     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Amerine, M.A., Pangborn, R.M., Roessler, E.B., Principles of sensory evaluation of food. 1965, Academic Press, New York, 427.
2. Ares, G., Methodological challenges in sensory characterization. Current Opinion in Food Science 3 (2015), 1–5.
3. Ares, G., Antúnez, L., Bruzzone, F., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., Pineau, B., et al. Comparison of sensory product profiles generated by trained assessors and consumers using CATA questions: Four case studies with complex and/or similar samples. Food Quality and Preference 45 (2015), 75–86.
4. 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 36 (2014), 111–121.
5. 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 36 (2014), 87–95.
6. Ares, G., Etchemendy, R., Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., Jaeger, S., Visual attention by consumers to check-all-that-apply questions: Insights to support methodological development. Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014), 210–220.
7. Ares, G., Jaeger, S.R., Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions with consumers in practice. Experimental considerations and impact on outcome. Delarue, J., Lawlor, J.B., Rogeaux, M., (eds.) Rapid sensory profiling techniques and related methods, 2015, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, Cambridge, 227–245.
8. 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 31 (2014), 135–141.
9. Ares, G., Varela, P., Comparison of novel methodologies for sensory characterization. Varela, P., Ares, G., (eds.) Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling, 2014, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 365–389.
10. Bruzzone, F., Ares, G., Giménez, A., Consumers’ texture perception of milk desserts. II- Comparison with trained assessors’ data. Journal of Texture Studies 43 (2012), 214–226.
11. Bruzzone, F., Vidal, L., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., Deliza, A., Ares, G., Comparison of intensity scales and CATA questions in new product development: Sensory characterisation and directions for product reformulation of milk desserts. Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015), 183–193.
12. Cadena, R.S., Caimi, D., Jaunarena, I., Lorenzo, I., Vidal, L., Ares, G., et al. Comparison of rapid sensory characterization methodologies for the development of functional yogurts. Food Research International 64 (2014), 446–455.
13. Cadoret, M., Husson, F., Construction and evaluation of confidence ellipses applied at sensory data. Food Quality and Preference 28 (2013), 106–115.
14. Cardello, A.V., Schutz, H.G., Numerical scale point locations for constructing the LAM (labeled affective magnitude) scale. Journal of Sensory Studies 19 (2004), 341–346.
15. Dehlholm, C., Brockhoff, P.B., Mejnert, 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 26 (2012), 267–277.
16. 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 21 (2010), 394–401.
17. Dos Santos, B.A., Bastianello Campagnol, P.C., da Cruz, A.G., Galvão, M.T.E.L., Monteiro, R.A., Wagner, R., et al. Check all that apply and free listing to describe the sensory characteristics of low sodium dry fermented sausages: Comparison with trained panel. Food Research International 76 (2015), 725–734.
18. Dravnieks, A., Odor quality: Semantically generated multidimensional profiles are stable. Science 218 (1982), 799–801.
19. Fisher, R.A., Statistical methods for research workers. 1954, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
20. Franco-Luesma, E., Sáenz-Navajas, M.-P., Valentin, D., Ballester, J., Rodrigues, H., Ferreira, V., Study of the effect of H2S, MeSH and DMS on the sensory profile of wine model solutions by Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA). Food Research International 87 (2016), 152–160.
21. Giacalone, D., Hedelund, P.I., 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 51 (2016), 65–71.
22. Green, B., Dalton, P., Cowart, B., Shaffer, G., Rankin, K., Higgins, J., Evaluating the ‘Labeled Magnitude Scale’ for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chemical Senses 21 (1996), 323–334.
23. Jaeger, S.R., Ares, G., Lack of evidence that concurrent sensory product characterisation using CATA questions bias hedonic scores. Food Quality and Preference 35 (2014), 1–5.
24. 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 30 (2013), 56–67.
25. 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 30 (2013), 242–249.
26. Lawless, H.T., Heymann, H., Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices. 2nd ed., 2010, Springer, New York.
27. Lê S., Josse, J., Husson, F., FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25:1 (2008), 1–18.
28. Lelièvre, M., Chollet, S., Abdi, H., Valentin, D., What is the validity of the sorting task for describing beers? A study using trained and untrained assessors. Food Quality and Preference 19 (2008), 697–703.
29. Manoukian, E.B., Mathematical nonparametric statistics. 1986, Gordon & Breach, New York, NY.
30. McBride, R.L., Hedonic rating of food: single or side-by-side sample presentation?. Journal of Food Technology 21 (1986), 355–363.
31. Meiselman, H.L., The future in sensory/consumer research: Ellipsis Ellipsis EllipsisEllipsisevolving to a better science. Food Quality and Preference 27 (2013), 208–214.
32. Meyners, M., Castura, J.C., Carr, B.T., Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference 30 (2013), 309–319.
33. Meyners, M., Castura, J.C., Check-all-that apply questions. Varela, P., Ares, G., (eds.) Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling, 2014, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 271–305.
34. Meyners, M., Jaeger, S.R., Ares, G., On the analysis of Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA) data. Food Quality and Preference 49 (2016), 1–10.
35. Moussaoui, K.A., Varela, P., Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010), 1088–1099.
36. Oppermann, A.K.L., de Graaf, C., Scholten, E., Stieger, M., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Comparison of Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA) and Descriptive sensory Analysis (DA) of model double emulsions with subtle perceptual differences. Food Quality and Preference 56 (2017), 55–68.
37. Core Team, R., R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2015, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
38. 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 32 (2014), 160–166.
39. Robert, P., Escoufier, Y., A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV coefficient. Applied Statistics 25 (1976), 257–265.
40. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., Asking questions. 1992, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
41. 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 48 (2012), 893–908.
42. Vidal, L., Tárrega, A., Antúnez, L., Ares, G., Jaeger, S.R., Comparison of Correspondence Analysis based on Hellinger and chi-square distances to obtain sensory spaces from Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) questions. Food Quality and Preference 43 (2015), 106–112.
43. Waehrens, S.S., Zhang, S., Hedelund, P.I., Petersen, M.A., Byrne, D.V., Application of the fast sensory method ‘Rate-All-That-Apply’ in chocolate Quality Control compared with DHS-GC-MS. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 51 (2016), 1877–1887.