Comparing classical descriptive analysis with modified descriptive analysis, modified rate‐all‐that‐apply, and modified check‐all‐that‐apply. Issue 5 (1st June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nishida, Misa; Lestringant, Pauline; Cantu, Annegret; Heymann, Hildegarde
• Is Part Of: Journal of sensory studies. Volume 36:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-06-01
• Subjects: Sensory evaluation -- Periodicals; Food -- Sensory evaluation -- Periodicals; Food preferences -- Periodicals; 664.072
• DOI: 10.1111/joss.12684
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0887-8250

Abstract

Abstract: There have been ongoing attempts to create new rapid sensory methods that allow one to have similar outcomes to conventional descriptive analysis but with less training and time. Check‐all‐that‐apply and rate‐all‐that‐apply methods seem to work very well when relatively large numbers of consumers are involved and with relatively more considerable differences among the samples in a product set. In this study, results from well‐trained descriptive analysis panels were compared to those obtained by using a modified descriptive analysis, modified rate‐all‐that‐apply, and modified check‐all‐that‐apply with shortened training times and with small panel size. The number of significant attributes and the number of sample pairs that were significantly different was counted. The results indicate that modified rate‐all‐that‐apply can have an equivalent discrimination ability as descriptive analysis when the product set included subtly different samples. Practical Applications: Based on this study's results, it would seem that the modified rate‐all‐that‐apply with three replications could be an adequate substitute for descriptive analysis in complex samples. The modified rate‐all‐that‐apply technique works well, especially when sensory attributes and reference standards are available for ballot training.