Comparing central location test and home use test results : Application of a new criterion

Choosing a consumer test methodology is critical for any company sensory scientist. However, we lack tools for comparing the outcome of consumer tests. Here we intended to develop a new comparison criterion based on a concept borrowed from metrology: robustness. We tested this concept with hedonic ratings data obtained from a central location test (CLT) on one hand and from a home use test (HUT) on the other hand. Two fermented milk beverages were tested and both tests were conducted with 240 subjects. The beverages differed in fat and sugar content. The comparison of the CLT and HUT data sets (both in monadic sequential) indicates that the method has a significant effect on the degree of liking. Indeed, the liking scores are lower with CLT than with HUT. Still, both tests lead to the same conclusion that the product with the higher fat and sugar content is significantly more liked. Besides, we developed three graphic representations that illustrate the results stability faced with the decrease in the panel size. These graphs show that CLT yields more robust results than HUT. Additionally the leading role of the panel size is emphasised for both tests. Our data show that the results from the two methods may change as soon as 20 subjects are removed from our original data set. These results that were not unexpected illustrate a fact which is often underestimated in practice.

[1]  R. Snow.  Genetic engineering of a yeast strain for malolactic fermentation of wine , 1985 .

[2]  H. C. M. Trijp,et al.  Hedonic responses, variety-seeking tendency and expressed variety in sandwich choices , 1995, Appetite.

[3]  Robert. Griffin,et al.  PRODUCT OPTIMIZATION IN CENTRAL‐LOCATION TESTING AND SUBSEQUENT VALIDATION AND CALIBRATION IN HOME‐USE TESTING , 1990 .

[4]  S. A. Kimmel,et al.  Sensory testing with young children. , 1994 .

[5]  M. Head,et al.  FOOD ACCEPTABILITY RESEARCH: COMPARATIVE UTILITY OF THREE TYPES OF DATA FROM SCHOOL CHILDREN , 1977 .

[6]  Herbert L. Meiselman,et al.  Methodology and theory in human eating research , 1992, Appetite.

[7]  H. Schutz.  Consumer data—sense and nonsense , 1999 .

[8]  Jean A. McEwan,et al.  A comparative study of three product acceptability trials , 1996 .

[9]  Elizabeth H. Zandstra,et al.  Laboratory hedonic ratings as predictors of consumption , 1999 .

[10]  S. Issanchou,et al.  Dynamics of liking for flavoured crackers: Test of predictive value of a boredom test , 1998 .

[11]  E. Köster,et al.  The relevance of initial hedonic judgements in the prediction of subtle food choices , 1999 .

[12]  Herbert L. Meiselman,et al.  The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability , 2004 .

[13]  Lawrence L. Garber,et al.  Measuring consumer response to food products , 2003 .

[14]  J. Kamen,et al.  Magnitude Estimation of Food Acceptance , 1994 .

[15]  Roger Frost,et al.  International Organization for Standardization (ISO) , 2004 .

[16]  E. Köster,et al.  Repeatability in hedonic sensory measurement: a conceptual exploration , 2003 .

[17]  L. Duizer,et al.  Improved consumer product development. Part one: Is a laboratory necessary to assess consumer opinion? , 2000 .

[18]  A. Brzozowska,et al.  Hedonic tests in different locations as predictors of apple juice consumption at home in elderly and young subjects , 2003 .

[19]  Brian Wansink,et al.  Response to “Measuring consumer response to food products”. Sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance , 2003 .

[20]  C. Hampson,et al.  Comparison of Mean Scores and R-indices for Consumer Preferences of Apple Cultivars , 1998 .

[21]  D. A. Stuiber,et al.  Using A New Measure To Define Shelf Life Of Fresh Whitefish , 1986 .

[22]  H. Meiselman,et al.  Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance , 2000, Appetite.

[23]  E. Köster,et al.  Measuring food liking in children: a comparison of non verbal methods , 1999 .

[24]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[25]  L. Calvin,et al.  A comparison of student preference panels with a household consumer panel. , 1959 .

[26]  A comparison of taste test ratings, repeated consumption, and postconsumption ratings of different strengths of iced tea , 1995 .

[27]  Tormod Næs,et al.  Consumer acceptance of cheese, influence of different testing conditions , 2005 .

[28]  S. A. Kimmel,et al.  Sensory testing with young children : children can be a valuable measuring tool when appropriate sensory tests and protocol are used , 1994 .

[29]  Tormod Næs,et al.  Effect of contextual factors on liking for wine—use of robust design methodology , 2003 .

[30]  S. Issanchou,et al.  Influence of label and location of testing on acceptability of cream cheese varying in fat content , 1995, Appetite.

[31]  H. Moskowitz.  Base size in product testing: A psychophysical viewpoint and analysis , 1997 .

[32]  F. M. Sawyer,et al.  Preference Testing of Whiskey Sour Formulations: Magnitude Estimation Versus the 9‐Point Hedonic , 1981 .

[33]  P. Pliner.  The Effects of Mere Exposure on Liking for Edible Substances , 1982, Appetite.