Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 70–74

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Short Communication

The concurrent use of JAR and CATA questions in hedonic scaling is

unlikely to cause hedonic bias, but may increase product discrimination
Sara R. Jaeger a,⇑, Denise C. Hunter a, Karrie Kam a, Michelle K. Beresford a, David Jin a, Amy G. Paisley a,
Sok L. Chheang a, Christina M. Roigard a, Gastón Ares b
a
The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, 120 Mt Albert Road, Private Bag 92169, Victoria Street West, Auckland, New Zealand
b
Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, Facultad de Química, Universidad de la República, Gral. Flores 2124, C.P. 11800 Montevideo, Uruguay

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The concurrent use of CATA questions (check-all-that-apply) with hedonic scaling in product research
Received 26 March 2015 with consumers has gained acceptance in recent years. However, CATA questions do not enable product
Received in revised form 31 March 2015 developers to identify consumers’ preferred intensity of a sensory attribute directly, and for this reason
Accepted 1 April 2015
just-about-right (JAR) questions are sometimes used together with questions that quantify attribute pres-
Available online 8 April 2015
ence and/or intensity. Using JAR questions, consumers have to describe each of the samples in terms of
each specific attribute, typically: 1 = ‘Not enough. . .’, 3 = ‘Just about right’, and 5 = ‘Much too. . .’. Past
Keywords:
research has suggested that co-elicitation of hedonic and JAR responses bias the hedonic data. This unde-
Research methods
Consumer research
sired effect could extend to the case where JAR questions are used concurrently with hedonic and CATA
Just-about-right questions questions. In seven studies (N = 762) across seven product categories no such evidence was found.
Check-all-that-apply questions Additionally, there was some evidence pointing to an increase in product discrimination based on hedo-
nic and CATA responses. Preliminary data indicated that the inclusion of JAR questions in product tests
also eliciting hedonic and CATA responses did not negatively affect consumers’ perception of the task,
which, on average, was still regarded as easy and not tedious. Future research is required to validate
the findings across more varied experimental settings.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction identify consumers’ preferred intensity of a sensory attribute

In new product development, ability to identify offerings that
closely align to consumer preferences and match their product
expectations is paramount (van Kleef, van Trijp, & Luning, 2006).
This requires a good understanding of consumers’ perception of
products, from both a sensory and a hedonic point of view
(Worch, 2012). For this reason, questions concerning the sensory
characteristics of products are often included in consumer tests,
along with overall liking questions (Lawless & Heymann, 2010).
One of the methods used for this purpose is CATA questions
(check-all-that-apply), in which consumers have to select from a
list of terms all those that they consider applicable to describing
a focal sample. This question format has been reported to be easy
and intuitive for consumers, providing valid and repeatable infor-
mation without influencing hedonic responses (Ares & Jaeger,
2015a; Jaeger & Ares, 2014; Jaeger et al., 2013). Despite these
advantages, CATA questions do not enable product developers to
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 99257000; fax: +64 99257001.
E-mail address: sara.jaeger@plantandfood.co.nz (S.R. Jaeger).
directly, which is a limitation in terms of using the data to direct
product reformulation. For this reason, just-about-right (JAR) ques-
tions are popular with product developers in industry, and are
often used together with questions that quantify attribute pres-
ence and/or intensity (Popper, 2014).
The JAR question format seeks to determine the optimum inten-
sity of a sensory attribute by asking consumers if they consider
that a sensory attribute is too strong, too weak or just-about-right
(Lawless & Heymann, 2010). According to Prescott, Lee, and Kim
(2011), tasks that force consumers to focus their attention on
specific sensory characteristics can induce an analytical mind-set,
which can inhibit representation of synthetic characteristics, such
as overall liking.
Evidence of hedonic bias due to the inclusion of sensory ques-
tions is contradictory (Moskowitz, Muñoz, & Gacula, 2003). Some
authors have reported that JAR questions biased hedonic scores,
leading to changes in conclusions regarding sample ranking based
on overall liking (Earthy, MacFie, & Hedderley, 1997; Popper,
Rosenstock, Schraidt, & Kroll, 2004). On the contrary, Popper,
Schraidt, and Kroll. (2005) and Jaeger et al. (2013) reported lack
of hedonic bias associated to these questions.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.001
0950-3293/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S.R. Jaeger et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 70–74
No extant research into the influence of JAR question on hedo-
nic bias has considered the case of using JAR questions in product
tests where consumer perform hedonic scaling and also answer
CATA questions. The present research addresses this gap. It also
addresses the concern that the inclusion of JAR questions in pro-
duct tests that already ask consumers to answer hedonic and
CATA questions could make them longer/more tedious. This could
decrease consumers’ attention to the task and detrimentally affect
their ability to identify differences among samples. Based on
preliminary analyses, Ares and Jaeger (2015b) suggested such an
effect when CATA questions were used concurrently with hedonic
scaling. Overall, the aim of the present work was to explore the
influence of JAR questions on hedonic and sensory product
discrimination.
Sample discrimination was of particular interest in the present
work. Research has shown that the strategy used by consumers to
evaluate samples can improve their ability to detect differences
among them. For example, Boutrolle, Delarue, Köster, Aranz, and
Danzart (2009) and Chae, Lee, and Lee (2010) reported that induc-
ing affective strategies for sample evaluation can increase their
ability to detect differences among samples in authenticity and
same-different tests. Therefore, it could be hypothesized that
attribute questions can modify the strategies used for sample
evaluation and influence discriminative ability. However, to the
authors’ knowledge no study has evaluated the influence of
attribute questions, including JAR questions, on the discriminative
ability of hedonic scores.
2. Materials and methods
Seven consumer studies involving seven different product
categories, with 2–5 samples per study, were conducted.
Between-subjects experimental designs were used in all studies,
with experimental treatments that compared ‘Hedonic + CATA’
product evaluation tasks with ‘Hedonic + CATA + JAR’ tasks.
Table 1 provides an overview of the studies.
2.1. Participants
A total of 762 consumers participated in the seven studies. The
number of consumers in each study ranged from 105 to 135.
Participants were registered on a database maintained by a profes-
sional recruitment firm and were screened in accordance with
eligibility criteria for each of the studies. They attended research
sessions at the Plant & Food Research Sensory Facility in
Auckland. Participants gave written informed consent to partici-
pants and were compensated in cash.
All participants lived in the greater Auckland region (New
Zealand). All participants were aged 20–70 years old and the per-
centage of female participants ranged from 47% to 67%.
Participants represented households in diverse socio-economic
strata, but none of the consumer samples was representative of
the general New Zealand population. In studies 1–3 and 5–7, par-
ticipants were overwhelmingly of Caucasian ethnicity. Participants
in Study 4 were of Han Chinese ethnicity and recent immigrants to
New Zealand (less than 3 years) and all aspects of this study were
conducted in Mandarin.
2.2. Samples
All samples in Studies 1, 3 and 6 were commercially available in
New Zealand and purchased from local supermarkets. Samples in
Studies 2, 4, 5 and 7 were either advanced selections grown under
commercial conditions or commercially available cultivars (apple,
pear, kiwifruit and mussels). Serving sizes were always sufficient
71
to allow 2–3 bites/sips per sample. Samples were always presented
in cups labelled with 3-digit random codes at room temperature.
2.3. Procedure
The procedure for data collection in all studies was similar.
Between-subjects experimental designs were always used,
comparing responses from two experimental treatments.
Experimental Treatment A was always ‘Hedonic + CATA’, meaning
that participants in this group provided hedonic responses to the
presented samples and answered a CATA question. In
Experimental Treatment B, participants always provided hedonic
scores and answered a CATA question, followed by a JAR question.
In all studies, hedonic responses were obtained on a 9-point
labelled category scale (1 = ‘dislike extremely’, 9 = ‘like extremely’).
The CATA terms used in each study were based on previous
research using these product categories and/or pilot work with
staff from Plant & Food Research. The CATA lists contained 12–16
terms and covered multiple sensory modalities (appearance,
aroma, flavour/taste, texture, after taste/mouth feel). Consumers
were asked to check the terms they considered appropriate for
describing samples.
Three JAR questions were included in each of the studies. The
specific attributes were different, as dictated by the focal product
category, but pertained to appearance, flavour and/or texture char-
acteristics. Consumers’ task was to describe each of the samples in
terms of each specific attribute, using a 5-point scale (1 = Not
enough. . ., 3 = Just about right, 5 = Much too. . .).
In Studies 1 and 3, participants answered two Likert questions
immediately after completion of the task: (i) ‘‘It was easy to
answer the questions about these samples’’; and (ii) ‘‘It was tedious
to answer the questions about these samples’’. The labelled 7-point
scale had 1 = ‘disagree extremely’ and 7 = ‘agree extremely’ as end-
point anchors. These questions have previously been used to
explore consumers’ task perception of CATA questions and variants
hereof (Jaeger & Ares, 2014).
Participants attended research sessions in groups of 10–12 peo-
ple. Fifty-nine of the participants in Study 3 also took part in Study
6, but completed a different experimental treatment (i.e., A then B
or B then A).
All data collection took place in standard sensory booths under
white light. Temperature and airflow was regulated. Samples were
presented in monadic sequence, following experimental designs
that were balanced for order and carry-over effects. The order in
which the terms were listed in the CATA question was different
for each product and each participant, following a design balanced
for presentation order (Williams’ Latin Square), according to the
recommendations put forward by Ares et al. (2014).
For classification purposes, participants’ ages, gender and con-
sumption frequency of target product were recorded. In all
instances, differences between the participant profiles (age, gender
and frequency of product consumption) of the experimental treat-
ment groups were non-significant (p > 0.11), with the exception of
age in Study 7 (p = 0.003).
Data were always collected as part of sessions that featured
multiple tasks including several product categories and research
methods. Only data relevant to the aims of this research are pre-
sented here.
2.4. Data analysis
For each study, linear mixed modelling was performed to
uncover significant differences in hedonic ratings across experi-
mental treatments. Treatments, samples and their interaction were
specified as fixed effects, whereas consumer (within experimental
treatment) was specified as a random effect. A linear mixed model
72 S.R. Jaeger et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 70–74

Table 1
Overview of studies and summary of results.

Study ID Study description Experimental treatments Results summary of linear mixed model
Study 1 Fruit cakes A (n = 67): Hedonic + CATA FExp.Tr. = 0.04 p = 0.846
5 Samples B (n = 68): Hedonic + CATA + JAR FSample = 5.58 p < 0.0001
15 CATA terms FExp.Tr.*sample = 2.00 p = 0.093
3 JAR questions
Study 2 Mussels A (n = 54): Hedonic + CATA FExp.Tr. = 2.91 p = 0.104
2 Samples B (n = 51): Hedonic + CATA + JAR FSample = 6.55 p = 0.011
19 CATA terms FExp.Tr.*sample = 3.15 p = 0.078
3 JAR questions
Study 3 Milk chocolates A (n = 58): Hedonic + CATA FExp.Tr. = 0.15 p = 0.701
3 Sample B (n = 58): Hedonic + CATA + JAR FSample. = 11.50 p = 0.002
12 CATA terms FExp.Tr.*sample = 0.63 p = 0.534
3 JAR questions
Study 4 Pear A (n = 55): Hedonic + CATA FExp.Tr. = 5.00 p = 0.039
3 Samples B (n = 55): Hedonic + CATA + JAR FSample = 12.81 p < 0.0001
16 CATA terms FExp.Tr.*sample = 1.10 p = 0.334
3 JAR questions
Study 5 Apple A (n = 60): Hedonic + CATA FExp.Tr. = 0.03 p = 0.867
4 Samples B (n = 59): Hedonic + CATA + JAR FSample. = 13.02 p < 0.0001
16 CATA terms FExp.Tr.*sample = 2.60 p = 0.052
3 JAR questions
Study 6 Peanuts A (n = 59): Hedonic + CATA FExp.Tr. = 0.00 p = 0.973
3 Samples B (n = 59): Hedonic + CATA + JAR FSample = 34.17 p < 0.0001
12 CATA terms FExp.Tr.*sample = 1.00 p = 0.371
3 JAR questions
Study 7 Green kiwifruit A (n = 59): Hedonic + CATA FExp.Tr. = 0.05 p = 0.832
4 Samples B (n = 59): Hedonic + CATA + JAR FSample = 0.55 p = 0.645
12 CATA terms FExp.Tr.*sample = 1.06 p = 0.368
3 JAR questions

was used on data from each experimental treatment, considering
sample as a fixed effect and consumer as a random effect.
Tukey’s test was used for post hoc pairwise comparisons of sample
means, at a significance level of 5%.
For each study, the frequency of use of each CATA term was
determined by counting the number of consumers who used that
term to describe each sample. Fisher’s exact test (Fisher, 1954)
was used to determine significant differences in the frequency of
use of the terms between experimental treatments. Cochran’s Q
test (Manoukian, 1986) was carried out separately on data from
each experimental treatment to identify significant differences
among samples on each of the sensory terms, for each of the
experimental treatments.
Task perception data were analysed using analysis of variance
(ANOVA), with Experimental treatment as the fixed effect.
All data analyses were carried out using R (R Core Team, 2014).
3. Results and discussion1
3.1. Influence of JAR questions on hedonic scores
As shown in Table 1, in six of the seven studies the inclusion of
JAR questions did not significantly affect hedonic scores when con-
currently collected with CATA questions (p > 0.10). However, in
Study 4 there was a significant effect of the JAR question on hedo-
nic scores (p = 0.039). On average, hedonic scores were signifi-
cantly lower when the JAR scale was included than when only a
CATA question was considered (6.1 vs. 6.6, respectively). The
interaction between experimental treatment and sample was non-
significant in all the studies (p > 0.078), suggesting that the inclu-
sion of JAR questions did not affect conclusions regarding sample
1
It is beyond the scope of this paper to report the product-specific attribute
information generated in the reported studies. Interested readers may contact the
authors for further information.
ranking in terms of overall liking. This can be seen by comparing
mean overall liking scores between experimental treatments in
Table 3.
Taken together, these results suggest that the addition of JAR
questions to a task involving hedonic and CATA questions is unli-
kely to affect overall liking scores. This is in agreement with the
findings of Popper et al. (2005) and Jaeger et al. (2013), who
reported lack of hedonic bias associated to JAR questions. It may
be noteworthy that the only study in which JAR questions affected
hedonic scores was carried out with Chinese consumers (Study 4).
Based on data collected with consumers in Korea, Prescott et al.
(2011) reported that an analytical mind-set could affect hedonic
ratings. Thus, it could be relevant to explore further if cultural fac-
tors modulate the occurrence of hedonic bias due to the inclusion
of attribute questions.
When hedonic data from both experimental treatments were
considered, significant differences among samples were estab-
lished in all studies, except for Study 7 (Table 1). This could be
due to very small differences between the kiwifruit samples
included in this study, which were induced by different posthar-
vest treatments. When analysing the data in greater detail, it was
found that conclusions regarding the existence of significant differ-
ences between samples, and the magnitude of any differences,
depended on the experimental treatment. In Studies 1, 2 and 5, sig-
nificant differences between samples were found in Experimental
Treatment B (‘Hedonic + CATA + JAR’) but not in Experimental
Treatment A (‘Hedonic + CATA’) (Table 2). Besides, the F-values in
Studies 3 and 4 were higher when consumers also answered
CATA and JAR questions than when only the CATA question was
used concurrently with hedonic scaling (7.98 vs. 4.50 and 8.37
vs. 4.73, respectively). The sample groupings determined by
Tukey’s test are shown in Table 3 and additionally support the
interpretation that the discrimination of samples based on hedonic
scores tended to improve when the hedonic responses were con-
currently elicited with a combination of CATA and JAR questions
 S.R. Jaeger et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 70–74 73

Table 2
Results of the ANOVA performed on hedonic scores for each experimental treatment, average percentage of terms selected by consumers to describe samples and percentage of
CATA terms for which significant differences between samples were identified, for consumers using CATA and CATA + JAR for describing samples in the seven studies, in addition
to providing hedonic responses.

Study ID Experimental treatments F-value and p-value Average percentage of CATA terms Percentage of CATA terms for which
(in brackets) in ANOVA selected for describing significant differences between samples
samples (%) were identified according to Cochran’s Q test (p < 0.05) (%)
Study 1 A (n = 67): Hedonic + CATA 1.28 (0.277) 29 100
B (n = 68): 6.81 (<0.001) 31 100
Hedonic + CATA + JAR
Study 2 A (n = 54): Hedonic + CATA 0.85 (0.357) 34 47
B (n = 51): 7.84 (<0.001) 31 53
Hedonic + CATA + JAR
Study 3 A (n = 58): Hedonic + CATA 4.50 (0.013) 42 50
B (n = 58): 7.98 (<0.001) 41 83
Hedonic + CATA + JAR
Study 4 A (n = 55): Hedonic + CATA 4.73 (0.010) 28 38
B (n = 55): 8.37 (<0.001) 28 69
Hedonic + CATA + JAR
Study 5 A (n = 60): Hedonic + CATA 2.37 (0.071) 30 81
B (n = 59): 14.24 (<0.001) 28 100
Hedonic + CATA + JAR
Study 6 A (n = 59): Hedonic + CATA 18.54 (<0.001) 37 83
B (n = 59): 17.54 (<0.001) 35 83
Hedonic + CATA + JAR
Study 7 A (n = 59): Hedonic + CATA 0.31 (0.818) 35 67
B (n = 59): 1.28 (0.282) 38 67
Hedonic + CATA + JAR

(four out of six studies; ignoring Study 7, where sample differences Table 3
were always non-significant). The exception to this trend was Mean and standard deviations for overall liking ratings obtained across the seven
studies. Ratings were collected on a 9-point hedonic scale (1 = ‘dislike extremely’ and
Study 4, and for completeness it is noted that in Study 6 the F-value
9 = ‘like extremely’). Treatment A is the control condition (‘Hedonic + CATA’) and
for sample effect was incrementally larger when the JAR question Treatment B includes the JAR question (‘Hedonic + CATA + JAR’). Refer to Table 1 for
was not included (18.54 vs. 17.54). full details of experimental treatments.
Taken together, these results provide evidence that the addition
Study ID Sample Treatment A Treatment B
of JAR questions is likely to improve consumers’ discrimination of
samples based on hedonic scores, an outcome that could be attrib- Study 1 (fruit cakes) Sample 1 5.8a ± 1.6 6.0a ± 2.0
Sample 2 5.3a ± 1.6 4.7b ± 1.6
uted to an increase in consumers’ engagement and attention to the Sample 3 6.1a ± 2.0 5.8a ± 1.8
task. This explanation is supported by previous reports of a strong Sample 4 5.5a ± 1.6 6.1a ± 1.6
relationship between the ability to concentrate and trained asses- Sample 5 6.0a ± 2.0 6.2a ± 2.0
sors’ performance (Lesschaeve & Issanchou, 1996). Furthermore, Study 2 (mussels) Sample 1 6.5a ± 1.8 6.8a ± 1.6
affective strategies for sample evaluation have been reported to Sample 2 6.2a ± 1.6 5.8b ± 2.0
increase consumers’ engagement and improve their performance Study 3 (milk chocolate) Sample 1 6.6a ± 1.6 6.9a ± 2.0
in authenticity and same-different tests (Boutrolle et al., 2009; Sample 2 7.0a ± 1.6 6.9a ± 1.6
Chae et al., 2010). Sample 3 6.1a,b ± 2.0 5.9b ± 1.8
Study 4 (pear) Sample 1 7.0a ± 1.4 6.7a ± 1.5
Sample 2 6.5b ± 1.5 6.2a ± 2.0
3.2. Influence of JAR questions on consumers’ responses to CATA Sample 3 6.2b ± 1.6 5.3b ± 2.1
questions Study 5 (apple) Sample 1 6.6a ± 1.7 6.9a ± 1.4
Sample 2 5.7a ± 1.9 5.6b ± 1.9
The addition of JAR questions to the task did not influence con- Sample 3 6.2a ± 2.0 6.9a ± 1.5
sumers’ CATA responses. According to Fisher’s exact test, the aver- Sample 4 5.8a ± 2.1 5.2b ± 2.0
age percentage of CATA terms used by consumers for describing Study 6 (peanuts) Sample 1 5.5b ± 1.7 5.8b ± 1.7
samples was not significantly different between the two experi- Sample 2 7.3a ± 1.3 7.3a ± 1.2
Sample 3 5.9b ± 1.9 5.6b ± 2.1
mental treatments (‘Hedonic + CATA’ and ‘Hedonic + CATA + JAR’)
(Table 2). Study 7 (green kiwifruit) Sample 1 6.2a ± 1.8 5.7a ± 1.6
Sample 2 6.3a ± 1.6 6.2a ± 2.0
However, the discriminative ability of the CATA question was
Sample 3 6.1a ± 1.8 6.3a ± 1.8
improved by the concurrent use of JAR questions. As shown in Sample 4 6.0a ± 1.6 6.3a ± 1.6
Table 2, the percentage of terms for which significant differences
Mean overall liking ratings with different superscripts within a column, for each
between samples were established according to Cochran’s Q test
study, are significantly different according to Tukey’s test for a 5% significance level.
differed in four of the seven studies (Studies 2–5). In the remaining
three studies (Studies 1, 6 and 7), discriminative ability was iden-
tical. Thus, it appears that JAR questions have the potential to 3.3. Influence of JAR questions on task perceptions
improve consumers’ ability to identify differences among samples
in terms of sensory characteristics, and, moreover, that the concur- In Studies 1 and 3, participants rated their perceived task ease/
rent use of this question format is unlikely to affect sample tediousness, and the responses were closely aligned with those
discrimination negatively. previously reported by Jaeger and Ares (2014). The inclusion of a
74 S.R. Jaeger et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 70–74
JAR question did not significantly affect perceived task ease
(p > 0.26) or tediousness (p > 0.39), relative to when only hedonic
and CATA responses were elicited. On average, consumers agreed
strongly that the task was easy (5.6–5.8 on the 7-point scale) and
disagreed strongly that the task was tedious (2.2–2.5 on the
7-point scale). These responses are in agreement with those
previously reported by Jaeger and Ares (2014), but should be repli-
cated to verify their robustness.
4. Conclusions
Contrary to previous reports, there was no evidence in this
research that JAR questions were associated with hedonic bias.
When JAR questions were included in product tests that also eli-
cited CATA responses, consumers’ hedonic product responses were
not affected. This result was obtained in seven different studies,
but should be replicated in other experimental settings, including
those where more than three JAR questions are used. There was
some evidence that the inclusion of JAR questions increased pro-
duct discrimination based on hedonic and CATA responses. This
has not previously been reported and warrants further investiga-
tion. In this regard, it would be interesting also to establish
whether the order of JAR and CATA questions is consequential.
Also, further research should explore if changes in product discrim-
ination occur when only JAR questions are concurrently used to
hedonic scores. In this research, hedonic responses were obtained
first, followed by CATA questions and lastly JAR questions.
Despite the additional consumer burden, the inclusion of JAR
questions was not associated with an increase in perceived task
difficulty and tediousness. However, it should be noted that in
the present work consumers evaluated only two to five samples.
As the number of samples increases, the inclusion of JAR questions
could increase task tediousness and decrease consumer discrim-
ination. In this sense, research extending results from the present
work to studies with more samples is necessary.
Author contributions
S.R.J. and G.A. developed the research and wrote the paper. G.A.
analysed the data. All other authors contributed to data collection.
Acknowledgements
All members of the Sensory & Consumer Science team at Plant &
Food Research are thanked for help in planning and collection of
data. Financial support was received from The New Zealand
Ministry for Business, Innovation & Employment, and from Plant
& Food Research.
References
Ares, G., Etchemendy, E., Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., & Jaeger, S. R. (2014).
Visual attention by consumers to check-all-that-apply questions: Insights to
support methodological development. Food Quality and Preference, 32, 210–220.
Ares, G., & Jaeger, S. R. (2015a). Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions with
consumers in practice. Experimental considerations and impact on outcome. In
J. Delarue, J. B. Lawlor, & M. Rogeaux (Eds.), Rapid sensory profiling techniques
and related methods (pp. 227–245). Sawston, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.
Ares & Jaeger, S. R. (2015b). Examination of sensory product characterization bias
when check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions are used concurrently with
hedonic assessments. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 199–208.
Boutrolle, I., Delarue, J., Köster, E., Aranz, D., & Danzart, M. (2009). Use of a test of
perceived authenticity to trigger affective responses when testing food. Food
Quality and Preference, 20, 418–426.
Chae, J. E., Lee, Y. M., & Lee, H. S. (2010). Affective same–different discrimination
tests for assessing consumer discriminability between milks with subtle
differences. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 427–438.
Earthy, P. J., MacFie, H. J. H., & Hedderley, D. (1997). Effect of question order on
sensory perception and preference in central location trials. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 12, 215–237.
Fisher, R. A. (1954). Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and
Boyd.
Jaeger, S. R., & Ares, G. (2014). Lack of evidence that concurrent sensory product
characterisation using CATA questions bias hedonic scores. Food Quality and
Preference, 35, 1–5.
Jaeger, S. R., Giacalone, D., Roigard, C. M., Pineau, B., Vidal, L., Gimenez, A., et al.
(2013). Investigation of bias of hedonic scores when co-eliciting product
attribute information using CATA questions. Food Quality and Preference, 30,
242–249.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and
practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Lesschaeve, I., & Issanchou, S. (1996). Could selection tests detect the future
performance of descriptive panellists? Food Quality and Preference, 7, 177–183.
Manoukian, E. B. (1986). Mathematical nonparametric statistics. New York, NY:
Gordon & Breach.
Moskowitz, H. R., Muñoz, A. M., & Gacula, M. C. (2003). Viewpoints and controversies
in sensory science and consumer product testing. Trumbull, Connecticut:
Blackwell Publishing.
Popper, R. (2014). Use of just-about-right scales in consumer research. In P. Varela &
G. Ares (Eds.), Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling
(pp. 365–389). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Popper, R., Rosenstock, W., Schraidt, M., & Kroll, B. J. (2004). The effect of attribute
questions on overall liking ratings. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 853–858.
Popper, R., Schraidt, M., & Kroll., B. J. (2005). When do attribute ratings affect overall
liking ratings?. In Sixth pangborn sensory science symposium. Davis, DA:
University of California [7–11 August].
Prescott, J., Lee, S. M., & Kim, K. (2011). Analytic approaches to evaluation modify
hedonic responses. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 391–393.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2006). Internal versus external
preference analysis: An exploratory study on end-user evaluation. Food Quality
and Preference, 17, 387–399.
Worch, T. (2012). The ideal profile analysis: From the validation to the statistical
analysis of ideal profile data [Ph.D. thesis]. Rennes, France: Agrocampus-Ouest.