Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) with semi-trained assessors: Sensory profiles closer to descriptive analysis or consumer elicited data?

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 64, Issue , 2018, Pages 11-20

  Alexi, N ^a,b   Nanou, E ^b   Lazo, O ^c   Guerrero, L ^c   Grigorakis, K ^b   Byrne, D V ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY   (Greece)

^c IRTA   (Spain)

Author keywords

CATA; Consumers; Descriptive analysis; Fast method; Training

Indexed keywords

EID: 85032004931     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.009     Document Type: Article

References (38)

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, 7th Pangborn sensory science symposium.
2. Alexi, N., Byrne, D.V., Nanou, E., Grigorakis, K., Investigation of sensory profiles and hedonic drivers of emerging aquaculture fish species. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, 2017, 10.1002/jsfa.8571.
3. Ares, G., Methodological challenges in sensory characterization. Current Opinion in Food Science 3 (2015), 1–5.
4. Ares, G., Methodological issues in cross-cultural sensory and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference, 2016, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.10.007.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 32 (2014), 210–220.
8. Ares, G., Jaeger, S.R., Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Quality and Preference 28:1 (2013), 141–153.
9. 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 30:2 (2013), 114–127.
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 Quality and Preference 31 (2014), 135–141.
11. Ares, G., Varela, P., Rado, G., Giménez, A., Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange-flavoured powdered drinks. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 46:8 (2011), 1600–1608.
12. Byrne, D.V., O'Sullivan, M.G., Dijksterhuis, G.B., Bredie, W.L.P., Martens, M., Sensory panel consistency during development of a vocabulary for warmed-over flavour. Food Quality and Preference 12:3 (2001), 171–187.
13. Cruz, A., Cadena, R., Castro, W., Esmerino, E., Rodrigues, J., Gaze, L., et al. Consumer perception of probiotic yogurt: Performance of check all that apply (CATA), projective mapping, sorting and intensity scale. Food Research International 54:1 (2013), 601–610.
14. 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 21:4 (2010), 394–401.
15. Giacalone, D., Bredie, W.L., Frøst, M.B., “All-In-One Test” (AI1): A rapid and easily applicable approach to consumer product testing. Food Quality and Preference 27:2 (2013), 108–119.
16. 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.
17. Hough, G., Experts versus consumers: A critique. Journal of Sensory Studies 13:3 (1998), 285–289.
18. ISO, ISO Standard 8589:2007 Sensory analysis – General guidance for the design of test rooms. 2007.
19. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P., Christensen, R., SensMixed: Mixed effects modelling for sensory and consumer data. R package version, 2013.
20. Kuznetsova, A., Christensen, R.H., Bavay, C., Brockhoff, P.B., Automated mixed ANOVA modeling of sensory and consumer data. Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015), 31–38.
21. Lazo, O., Claret, A., Guerrero, L., A comparison of two methods for generating descriptive attributes with trained assessors: Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) vs. free choice profiling (FCP). Journal of Sensory Studies 31:2 (2016), 163–176.
22. Lazo, O., Guerrero, L., Alexi, N., Grigorakis, K., Claret, A., Pérez, J.A., et al. Sensory characterization, physico-chemical properties and somatic yields of five emerging fish species. Food Research International, 2017, 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.023.
23. Liu, J., Grønbeck, M.S., Di Monaco, R., Giacalone, D., Bredie, W.L., Performance of Flash Profile and Napping with and without training for describing small sensory differences in a model wine. Food Quality and Preference 48 (2016), 41–49.
24. MacFie, H.J., Bratchell, N., Greenhoff, K., Vallis, L.V., Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 4:2 (1989), 129–148.
25. Martens, M., Bredie, W.L.P., Martens, H., Sensory profiling data studied by partial least squares regression. Food Quality and Preference 11:1–2 (2000), 147–149.
26. Meyners, M., Castura, J.C., Check-All-That-Apply questions. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling, 2014, CRC Press.
27. Moussaoui, K.A., Varela, P., Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference 21:8 (2010), 1088–1099.
28. Murray, J., Delahunty, C., Baxter, I., Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International 34:6 (2001), 461–471.
29. Nielsen, J., Hyldig, G., Larsen, E., ‘Eating Quality’ of fish—A review. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology 11:3–4 (2002), 125–141.
30. O'Mahony, M., Goldenberg, M., Stedmon, J., Alford, J., Confusion in the use of the taste adjectives 'sour’ and ‘bitter’. Chemical Senses 4:4 (1979), 301–318.
31. Oppermann, A., 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.
32. Reinbach, H.C., Giacalone, D., Ribeiro, L.M., Bredie, W.L., 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.
33. Rinnan, Å., Giacalone, D., Frøst, M.B., Check-all-that-apply data analysed by Partial Least Squares regression. Food Quality and Preference 42 (2015), 146–153.
34. Robert, P., Escoufier, Y., A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV-coefficient. Applied Statistics, 1976, 257–265.
35. Valentin, D., Chollet, S., Lelievre, M., Abdi, H., Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 47:8 (2012), 1563–1578.
36. Van Trijp, H., Schifferstein, H., Sensory analysis in marketing practice: Comparison and integration. Journal of Sensory Studies 10 (1995), 127–147.
37. 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 48:2 (2012), 893–908.
38. Wesson, J., Lindsay, R.C., Stuiber, D.A., Discrimination of fish and seafood quality by consumer populations. Journal of Food Science 44:3 (1979), 878–882.