Short CommunicationRandomization of CATA attributes: Should attribute lists be allocated to assessors or to samples?
Introduction
Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions are used increasingly in consumer testing to enable product characterization from the same assessors who provide hedonic responses to products. As with the application of any sensory methodology, methodological aspects must be considered (Meyners & Castura, 2014) and appropriate data analysis used (Meyners, Castura, & Carr, 2013). For example, it is well documented that the position of attributes in a CATA question biases responses (Ares & Jaeger, 2013). As positional biases cannot be eliminated, they are balanced across products via experimental designs, ensuring each attribute appears with equal frequency in each position for each product. But what is the best way to allocate attribute list orders?
The “to assessor” scheme describes the allocation of attribute orders to assessors, such that each assessor has a particular fixed attribute list for a particular replicate, but each assessor has a different list order. The “to sample” scheme involves allocating attribute orders to samples, such that a particular assessor gets a different attribute list for each sample evaluation. The “to samples” attribute list order allocation scheme has been recommended by Ares et al. (2014) based on results from an eye-tracking experiment involving consumer CATA data collection. Their recommendation is based mainly on the greater level of visual attention given to the CATA terms when the attribute list order changed with each sample presentation, and the deeper cognitive engagement which this additional visual attention might imply.
The intent of this paper is to evaluate whether any of these allocation schemes is superior to the other with regards to operational power, with the hypothesis (based on theoretical considerations) that the “to assessor” scheme should be superior to complete randomization. We discuss the theoretical reasoning that gives rise to this hypothesis, and present data from a consumer bread study that was conducted as an empirical test of operational power differences between these two schemes.
Section snippets
Modeling attribute list order effects
Ideally, the probability of an attribute being checked (or not checked) would depend primarily on the product; however, we know that the checked state will also depend on the assessor and include some error variation. Furthermore, differences due to the attribute list order are anticipated (Ares and Jaeger, 2013, Meyners and Castura, 2014). Consequently, where indicates the selection of a given attribute, a reasonable model for the selection probability of the attribute can be expressed as
Comparing CATA list order allocation schemes in practice
The “to assessor” and “to sample” CATA list order allocation schemes were evaluated in a consumer bread study (n = 93) conducted at Compusense Inc. in March 2015. The ballot included a CATA question with 32 sensory attributes. Consumers were allocated randomly to one of two groups. Group 1 consumers evaluated 6 breads in a Williams modified Latin square design (followed by an ideal product), all with the “to assessor” allocation for the CATA list orders, then after an inter-session delay,
Discussion
In this experiment, data from the “to assessor” allocation and the “to sample” allocation produced very similar sensory profiles. The allocations were similar with respect to the total number of citations, a finding also reported earlier by Ares et al. (2013). However, the “to assessor” allocation had superior operational power, and is hence our CATA list order allocation scheme of choice. In contrast, Ares et al. (2014) present eye-tracking data that suggest a benefit from changing the
References (6)
- et al.
Visual attention by consumers to check-all-that-apply questions: Insights to support methodological development
Food Quality and Preference
(2014) - et al.
Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization
Food Quality and Preference
(2013) - et al.
CATA questions for sensory product characterization: Raising awareness of biases
Food Quality and Preference
(2013)
Cited by (75)
Effect of oral burn on dynamic taste, flavor and mouthfeel perception of tomato soups, curried rice and beef patties
2024, Food Quality and PreferenceBeyond Reality: Exploring the effect of different virtual reality environments on visual assessment of cakes
2024, Food Research InternationalKnowledge of an insect pest negatively affects sensory perception and emotional response to blueberries
2023, Food Quality and PreferenceIdentifying temporal sensory drivers of liking of biscuit supplemented with brewer's spent grain for young consumers
2023, Food Research InternationalAttitudes and beliefs of French consumers towards innovative food products that mix dairy and plant-based components
2023, International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science