Application of the Engagement Questionnaire (EQ) to compare methodological differences in sensory and consumer testing. (February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hannum, Mackenzie E.; Forzley, Sheri; Popper, Richard; Simons, Christopher T.
• Is Part Of: Food research international. Volume 140(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-02
• Subjects: Engagement -- Methodological development -- Consumer testing -- Comparison -- Validation; Food -- Analysis -- Periodicals; Food industry and trade -- Periodicals; Food industry and trade -- Canada -- Periodicals; Food Technology -- Periodicals; Food -- Periodicals; Food-Processing Industry -- Periodicals; Aliments -- Industrie et commerce -- Périodiques; Aliments -- Industrie et commerce -- Canada -- Périodiques; Aliments -- Recherche -- Périodiques; Food industry and trade; Canada; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 664.005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.110083
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0963-9969

Abstract

Graphical abstract: Highlights: Panelist engagement can aid in comparing sensory and consumer methodologies. Subjects were consistently engaged across a multi-day evaluation. Changing the structure of a typical JAR question impacted panelist engagement. Instilling a time pressure during a consumer evaluation decreased engagement. Abstract: Understanding the panelist experience in sensory and consumer testing is a critical step in methodological development that improves data reliability. Therefore, the Engagement Questionnaire (EQ) was recently developed to characterize consumer engagement during sensory and consumer testing and to provide a novel and translatable metric for researchers to compare methodologies. Presently, we assessed whether relatively minor methodological manipulations to common consumer testing paradigms impact panelist engagement. Specifically, panelist engagement was measured in three scenarios: over the course of a two-day consumer hedonic evaluation (Experiment 1), with differing Just-About-Right (JAR) questionnaire formats in an evaluation (Experiment 2), and with a time pressure element imposed during a consumer acceptability test (Experiment 3). In Experiment 1, subjects remained actively involved in the evaluation across both days of testing, however, they found more purpose and affective value in the task after the second day. In Experiment 2, changing the structure of JAR questions did not impact subject's level of active involvement with the task, yet certain JAR question structures did elicit higher purposeful intent and affective value in subjects. Surprisingly, in Experiment 3, subjects were less actively involved in the time-pressure condition; purposeful intent and affective value were consistent across both conditions. Overall, the EQ was able to resolve differences in panelists' perceived level of engagement across all the experimental manipulations, aiding in discussion regarding the effect even minor manipulations might have on consumer panelists. The EQ is a valuable asset to methodological development and enables comparisons of differing sensory and consumer methodologies.