Analysis and Thurstonian Scaling of Applicability Scores

Daniel M. Ennis; John M. Ennis

doi:10.1111/joss.12034

journal article Feb 21, 2013

Analysis and Thurstonian Scaling of Applicability Scores

Daniel M. Ennis John M. Ennis

Journal of Sensory Studies Vol. 28 No. 3 pp. 188-193 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/joss.12034

Abstract

AbstractCheck‐all‐that‐apply (CATA) lists are commonly used in both survey research and sensory science. A related technique, referred to in this paper as applicability scoring, requires respondents to respond positively or negatively to the item of interest – applicability scoring differs from CATA as CATA only requires a check when the item applies to the object being scored. Both hypothesis testing and scale estimation for applicability scoring of sequentially tested products are considered in this paper. For the former, we demonstrate the use of McNemar's test and for the latter, we present a Thurstonian model. Using applicability scores for scale estimation is important because a connection can then be made to other methods through a common framework, allowing cross‐comparison and validation. In addition, applicability scoring provides a sensitive method for assessing product differences and may be particularly useful when an attribute cannot be conveniently expressed in a rating or 2‐alternative forced choice (2‐AFC) format.Practical ApplicationsThe first use of applicability scoring in survey research was by Sudman and Bradbury and its first use in sensory science was by Loh and Ennis. In survey research, the method is more appropriate than CATA lists in telephone surveys and may lead to deeper processing of the items. In sensory science, the method offers a convenient way of collecting and analyzing data on product differences for attributes that may not be easily expressed as ratings or in a 2‐AFC format. Since the method is used sequentially, it can be used for more than two products. When the attribute is liking (the item scored is I like this product), the method allows the separation of like both from like neither which is not provided using a preference question with a no‐preference option. This capability therefore provides more information about the acceptability of both products than can be obtained from a preference test.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

49

[1]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.02.009

[2]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.08.002

[3]

Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization

Gastón Ares, Sara R. Jaeger

Food Quality and Preference 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.016

[4]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.10.006

[5]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2010.00290.x

[6]

Identifying ideal products using three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external preference mapping

Gastón Ares, Paula Varela, Germán Rado et al.

Food Quality and Preference 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.04.004

[7]

Bi J. (2006)

[8]

10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00976.x

[9]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.04.003

[10]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2005.00039.x

[11]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.05.005

[12]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.03.003

[13]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.10.005

[14]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.03.011

[15]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.10.002

[16]

Ennis D. "Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation" Food Technol. (1990)

[17]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.1993.tb00225.x

[18]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.06.006

[19]

10.1007/s00357‐013‐9125‐8

[20]

10.1037/0096-1523.21.5.1088

[21]

10.1111/j.2044-8317.1988.tb00885.x

[22]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2012.00374.x

[23]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2011.00353.x

[24]

10.1111/j.2044-8317.1998.tb00677.x

[25]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.09.011

[26]

10.3758/bf03208311

[27]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2008.00163.x

[28]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.005

[29]

Measuring emotions associated with foods: Important elements of questionnaire and test design

Silvia C. King, Herbert L. Meiselman, B. Thomas Carr

Food Quality and Preference 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.007

[30]

10.1002/acp.2350050305

[31]

10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537

[32]

10.1086/269029

[33]

Loh K.andEnnis D.M.1982.Glossary of attributes. Philip Morris Technical Report #82‐288. Downloaded fromhttp://www.pmdocs.com/pdf/2001298236_8263_120_201326123634.pdf(accessed February 6 2013).

[34]

Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference Between Correlated Proportions or Percentages

Quinn McNemar

Psychometrika 10.1007/bf02295996

[35]

10.1002/9780470669181

[36]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.012

[37]

Pagano M. (2000)

[38]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2010.00297.x

[39]

EXTERNAL PREFERENCE MAPPING OF COMMERCIAL ANTIAGING CREAMS BASED ON CONSUMERS' RESPONSES TO A CHECK-ALL-THAT-APPLY QUESTION

MARÍA EMMA PARENTE, ANA VICTORIA MANZONI, Gastón Ares

Journal of Sensory Studies 10.1111/j.1745-459x.2011.00332.x

[40]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2010.00315.x

[41]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.10.008

[42]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.008

[43]

10.3758/bf03194526

[44]

10.3758/bf03196803

[45]

Comparing Check-All and Forced-Choice Question Formats in Web Surveys

J. D. Smyth

Public Opinion Quarterly 10.1093/poq/nfj007

[46]

Sudman S. (1982)

[47]

10.1111/j.1745-459x.2011.00327.x

[48]

10.1037/h0070288

[49]

10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.012

Cited By

27

Lack of evidence that concurrent sensory product characterisation using CATA questions bias hedonic scores

Sara R. Jaeger, Gastón Ares · 2014

Food Quality and Preference

Metrics

27

Citations

49

References

Details

Published: Feb 21, 2013
Vol/Issue: 28(3)
Pages: 188-193
License: View

Authors

D

Daniel M. Ennis

The Institute for Perception 7629 Hull Street Road Richmond VA 23236 USA

J

John M. Ennis

The Institute for Perception 7629 Hull Street Road Richmond VA 23236 USA

Cite This Article

Daniel M. Ennis, John M. Ennis (2013). Analysis and Thurstonian Scaling of Applicability Scores. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28(3), 188-193. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12034

Analysis and Thurstonian Scaling of Applicability Scores

You May Also Like