Sensory Evaluation: Sensory Rating and Scoring Methods

TC Pimentel, Instituto Federal do Paraná (IFPR), Paranavaı́, Brazil

A Gomes da Cruz, Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio de Janeiro (IFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
R Deliza, Embrapa Agroindústria de Alimentos, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Nominal Scale

Sensations and hedonic experiences cannot be shared directly
with other people, and therefore, it was thought that these
experiences were inaccessible to direct measurements. How-
ever, after some years of studies, psychologists and researchers
in the food area have accepted the use of methods with scales to
measure sensory and hedonic responses. Since there are theo-
retical and practical differences among the various scales, many
studies, discussions, and controversies existed and still exist.
The focus of most methods using scales consisted of measur-
ing the intensity of sensations. The development of hedonic scales
fell behind since the assessment of product acceptance was con-
sidered minor by psychophysicists. However, in recent years, the
interest in measuring hedonic responses has grown dramatically,
resulting in the development of several new methods.
Rating and scoring methods are the basis for the quantification
of sensory information. Although these terms are often used as
synonyms, actually, they have different meanings. Rating refers to
the quantification of information through the use of ordinal
categories, while scoring is a more definite way of rating, using a
numerical interval or a ratio scale, whose properties are known.
Thus, with rating information about the order of acceptance of the
samples is obtained, while with scoring, it is possible to determine
differences in acceptance among the products or consumers and
the size of this difference, depending on the scale used.
Since the methods with scale to measure the intensity of
sensations were always discussed, this article will focus on
methods with scales that have been developed to measure
hedonic responses. We intend to compare the different
methods with scales for product acceptance assessment, show-
ing their advantages and disadvantages, in order to help in the
selection of the best method for each research.
Types of Scales
Four types of scale can be used to obtain sensory data of
product acceptance: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio.
Table 1 presents information about the different scales.
Nominal scale is that in which the collected data are categorized
by name or number. The categories have no logical order, so the
arrangement order in the evaluation sheet does not change
the logic of the question or data processing. In addition, there
is no quantitative relationship among them.
Nominal scales are hardly used in sensory analysis. An
example of its use would be a test where assessors should
indicate the number 1 for the products they consider good
and 2 for those they consider bad. They can also be used to
classify demographic data of the participants such as gender,
age, education, and frequency of consumption of the product
in question. The data analysis and interpretation are made
through histograms, indicating the frequency of occurrence of
responses in each category. Then, it is determined if there are
more observations in one category than another through the
chi-square test.
Ordinal Scale
Ordinal scale allows one to determine the order in which the
products are accepted by consumers (e.g., product A, the most
accepted; product B, the second most accepted; and product C,
the least accepted). This type of scale cannot quantify the
degree of difference among products. Ranking is considered
an ordinal scale.
Interval Scale
Interval scale is used to measure magnitudes (different degrees
of acceptance) assuming equal distances among the points of
the scale and the existence of an arbitrary zero. Nine-point
hedonic scale is often considered an interval scale, although
this classification is debatable since the intervals are numeri-
cally but not psychologically equal.
Ratio Scale
Ratio scale is also used to measure magnitudes, and it is
a special case of interval scale, wherein the acceptance of a

Table 1 Types of scales

Scale Basic operation Number usage Permissible statistics Example hedonic scales

Nominal Categorization Used as labels Nonparametric 1: Good

2: Bad
Ordinal Greater or less Rank order Nonparametric Ranking
Interval Differences Degrees of difference Parametric Category scale
Ratio Ratios Relative proportions Parametric LAM, LHS

The numerical values for the semantic labels can be found in the original papers for each scaling method (Lim et al., 2009 [LHS], Schultz and Cardello, 2001 [LAM], Guest et al. (2007)
[OPUS], and Green et al. (1993) [gLMS]).
Source: Adapted from Lim, J. (2011). Hedonic scaling: a review of methods and theory. Food Quality and Preference 22, 733–747.

744 Encyclopedia of Food and Health http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00617-6

 Sensory Evaluation: Sensory Rating and Scoring Methods 745

product can be expressed as a percentage or ratio of acceptance Best–Worst Scale

of the other products. Ratio scale has an absolute zero. For
A best–worst scale is an alternative preference elicitation
example, a product obtaining score 8 is twice more accepted
method and is more readily understood through an example.
than that obtaining score 4. Labeled affective magnitude
Consider four products (A, B, C, and D) that will be evaluated
(LAM) and labeled hedonic scale (LHS) are examples of ratio
for acceptance by consumers. An experimental design is used to
scales.
generate sets of three samples from the four products (A, B, C,
and D), which will be evaluated in four sessions with three
products per session (Figure 1).
Rating Methods The participants of the test are required to indicate the most
accepted (the most liked) and the least accepted (the least
The rating methods involve quantifying the acceptance of liked) product out of the three products available. Responses
products using ordinal scales. In this type of method, it is not are converted into individual scales for each sample: (1) The
possible to quantify the degree and ratio of the difference in number of times a certain sample has been indicated as the
acceptance, that is, you cannot know how much a sample is most accepted and the number of times it was considered as
more accepted than the other is. the least accepted is counted; (2) these numbers are subtracted.
For example, a final value of 1 means that the sample was
indicated twice as the most liked and once as the least liked
Ranking (2
1 ¼ 1), for example. A value of 0 means that the sample
was indicated the same number of times as the most liked and
This method is used when the objective is to compare several
the least liked. It is possible to assess the final results among
samples according to the preference, although it may be used
participants or, overall, for the samples, indicating the most
when assessing any attribute, such as sweetness and crispness.
and the least accepted ones (Table 2).
It is a simple way to compare the samples, but the data are
The data from the first six assessors are shown in Table 2.
ordinal and no measure of the degree of difference is obtained
For subject 1, the most accepted sample was sample A (value 3)
from the participants. Products are presented all at once in
and the least accepted sample was sample C (value
3). Over-
balanced order, which can limit the number of samples due
all (aggregated value), the preferred sample was C and the
to sensory fatigue. The assessor is required to rank according to
least preferred sample was A. The results of this scale can
the attribute of interest or, for example, the preference.
be transformed into a scale of probability when analyzed by
The ordering of up to five or six products is possible; how-
multinomial logit.
ever, it depends greatly upon the nature of the sample. Data are
analyzed using nonparametric statistics (e.g., the Friedman
test) in order to determine whether there is difference in accep-
tance and among which samples. Ordering test does not pro- Least liked Most liked
Set 1
vide data on the absolute values of acceptance or rejection. In sample sample
addition, the products are ranked according to the degree of Sample B
acceptance, but it is not possible to say whether all samples Sample C
were accepted or rejected. Sample A
The judges can taste the products as often as necessary and
review or change their scores, preventing inappropriate ratings Least liked Most liked
caused by forgetting of previous samples. This is because, when Set 2
sample sample
the assessment is performed monadically, the scores given to Sample D
each product, as well as the exact sensation it promotes, may be Sample A
forgotten. With permission to try the products as often as they Sample B
wish, the judges may change the order of products in the scale,
until they are convinced that the degrees of acceptance of
Least liked Most liked
samples are properly represented. Set 3
sample sample
When this protocol is compared to the monadic assess-
Sample A
ment, where tasting products more than once and monitoring
Sample D
assigned scores are not allowed, it presents fewer errors due to
Sample C
memory losses. In addition, it has the advantage that many
judges find it easy to do the ordering of products as they are
used to order ‘things’ in everyday life. Finally, human behavior Least liked Most liked
Set 4
sample sample
as a data source would be more convenient than numerical
estimates obtained with verbal scales. Sample C
However, this protocol may not be suitable in Sample B
certain situations, such as when products subject to sensory Sample D
adaptation are evaluated, precisely because there are multiple Figure 1 Example of best–worst scale using four products.
tastings of the same sample. In addition, it is considered a time- Reproduced from Jaeger, S. R., Jorgensen, A. S., Aaslyng, M. D.
consuming method, and elderly or those with difficulty in and Bredie, W. L. P. (2008). Best–worst scale: an introduction and initial
reading or performing mathematical tasks would have diffi- comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation with
culty using it. food products. Food Quality and Preference 19, 579–588.
746 Sensory Evaluation: Sensory Rating and Scoring Methods

Scoring Methods This scale can also be displayed vertically and be adapted to
a seven-point scale or present ‘faces’ representing the degree of
Scoring methods are those in which one can observe the accep- like/dislike, to facilitate its use with children or people who
tance differences and in some cases the size of such differences. cannot read. This type of scale is often used for comparison
Furthermore, in many cases, it is possible to evaluate differ- among samples in Food Science, considering that if consumers
ences in acceptance among groups of consumers. ‘liked extremely’ sample ‘A’ and they ‘liked slightly’ sample ‘B,’
then sample ‘A’ is more accepted and preferred than sample ‘B.’
Thus, this scale infers the preference.
Category Scales When using this scale, products must be presented in a
Category scale is a measurement method in which the assessor monadic way, that is, one at a time, with no new assessment
is asked to ‘measure’ the intensity of a stimulus assigning a of the same sample or reference to the scores given to previous
value (category) on a limited scale, which is usually numerical. samples. The idea is that in purchasing situations, consumers
Category scales are widely used in sensory analysis for affective do not test several products and then select the preferred one;
responses (related to the preference or acceptance of products). they evaluate the products, one at a time, and select one based
These are scales where the degree of acceptance is evaluated on their comparative memory of previous evaluations of prod-
through verbal (nine-point hedonic scale) or numerical labels ucts, that is, comparing the products to their internal and
(numerical nine-point hedonic scale). individual reference. The aim when evaluating samples mon-
adically is to promote absolute evaluations that are not affected
by comparisons with other products, thus removing contextual
Nine-point hedonic scale
effects. Ideally, the samples should be evaluated on different
Nine-point hedonic scale is widely used for acceptance testing
days or weeks, but for practical conditions, products are
when the goal is to determine how much a specific product is
evaluated one after the other and the evaluation sheet with
liked by the consumer. It consists of a balanced bipolar scale
the scores and samples are removed after each assessment. The
around the neutral category (5 ¼ neither liked nor disliked),
order of samples presentation must be balanced to avoid posi-
with four positive categories (6, 7, 8, and 9 ¼ liked slightly,
tioning errors or carryover effects, and for this, designs are
liked moderately, liked very much, and liked extremely, respec-
already available to facilitate the implementation of tests.
tively) and four negative categories (1, 2, 3, and 4 ¼ disliked
The main reason the nine-point hedonic scale is the most
extremely, disliked very much, disliked moderately, and
used in acceptance testing is that, compared to other scales
disliked slightly, respectively) (Figure 2).
(e.g., magnitude estimation), it has a limited number of cate-
The categories are composed of sentences representing sev-
gories, making it easy to use by different segments of the
eral degrees of affection and are arranged successively, suggest-
population and requiring no prior training. For researchers,
ing continuity of liking and disliking of products. The
the evaluation of the generated data is easier when compared
sentences help consumers to respond adequately and
to other techniques, which require measurement of lines or
researchers to interpret the responses regarding the acceptance
estimation of ratios that may include fractions. In addition, it
of products.
was demonstrated that scales with simple categories are as
sensitive as the other scales (magnitude estimation) in relation
Table 2 Example of data of six judges evaluating four samples using to the power of sample discrimination. So, if the main goal of a
best–worst scale
study is to measure differences in acceptance among samples
B–W B–W B–W B–W or predict the acceptability, the nine-point hedonic scale has
Participant (sample A) (sample B) (sample C) (sample D) proved to be simple and effective. Many companies have stored
data based on this kind of scale, which facilitates the compar-
1 3
1
3 1 ison of products under development to those already available
2 0 0 3
3 on the market.
3
3
1 2 2 However, although it is widely used in Sensory Science,
4
1
3 3 1
several limitations are attributed to the nine-point hedonic
5
3 3 1
1
scale. First, by having unequally spaced categories, the result
6
3 2
1 2
Aggregate
7 0 5 2 indicates which samples are more accepted but does not quan-
tify how much a sample is more accepted than another sample
Source: Jaeger, S. R., Jorgensen, A. S., Aaslyng, M. D. and Bredie, W. L. P. (2008). (because if a product obtained score 8, it does not mean that
Best–worst scale: an introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for it is twice more accepted than a product obtaining score 4),
preference elicitation with food products. Food Quality and Preference 19, 579–588. nor compares the acceptance among individuals or groups.

DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE DISLIKE NEITHER LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE
EXTREMELY VERY MUCH MODERATELY SLIGHTLY NOR DISLIKE SLIGHTLY MODERATELY VERY MUCH EXTREMELY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Figure 2 Nine-point hedonic scale with the numbers used in the statistical assessments. Reproduced from Wichchukit, S. and O’Mahony, M.
(2014). The 9-point hedonic scale ranking in food science: some reappraisals and alternatives. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6993.
 Sensory Evaluation: Sensory Rating and Scoring Methods
1 2 3 4
Figure 3 Numerical nine-point hedonic scale.
Secondly, due to the limited number of categories, it offers the
assessors little freedom to express in full their hedonic experi-
ence when tasting the product. In addition, there is a general
tendency among assessors of not using the extremes of the
scale, reducing it from 9 to 7 points and limiting the ability
to discriminate samples that consumers liked or disliked a lot
(located at the scale extremes). This is because the assessors
think that, once they assign a sample the maximum/minimum
score, the following products that may be perceived as more or
less accepted may not be adequately evaluated.
Frequently, there are errors by adaptation, that is, there is a
tendency for the judges to repeat the same evaluation in condi-
tions in which a series of products are displayed. The presence
of a neutral category (‘neither liked nor disliked’) reduces the
scale efficiency, since it encourages a certain degree of compla-
cency by individuals, that is, they consider this category as being
safe, which they can use without effect on the assessment.
Finally, considering the viewpoint of statistics, as the gen-
erated data are categorical and discrete, without a zero point,
the type of statistics is restricted to nonparametric statistics.
However, it is a common practice among researchers to use
parametric statistics such as analysis of variance to analyze the
collected data, although it is mathematically inappropriate
because the homogeneity of variances and normality of exper-
imental errors must be assumed.
Large numbers of consumers are required to evaluate the
acceptability of a product with sufficient degree of reliability,
since there is large subjectivity in the assessment.
When the nine-point hedonic scale shows only numbers, it
is called numerical scale (Figure 3), and labels may be added at
the extremes and in the middle of the scale. The judges are
asked to taste the samples one by one and indicate the degree
of acceptance, using the numerical values.
The numerical hedonic scale is useful when comparing
a product under development to the market leader, as well
as to products with intermediate and worst sales. If the new
product reaches a score similar to that of the leader, it means
that it is as accepted as the leader, no matter if the score obtained
was 9, 8, or 7.
When using the traditional nine-point hedonic scale, the
accepted products are positioned at the top of the scale (liked
slightly to liked extremely). In the case of numerical hedonic
scale (without using labels), products are expected to be posi-
tioned along the scale, which does not imply that a product at
positions 1–4 is rejected. This is because the judge may have
liked all products, positioning them on the scale in order
of preference. When the labels are added, the numerical scale
behaves similarly to the traditional scale, although the num-
bers do not represent the same hedonic sensations.
Continuous line scales
Unstructured or linear hedonic scales are represented by a line,
anchored at their extremes with the minimum and maximum
degrees of acceptance (disliked extremely and liked extremely)
(Figure 4).
747
5 6 7 8 9
dislike extremely like extremely
Figure 4 Unstructured or linear hedonic scale.
The line size is generally 100 mm; however, it may vary
according to the test requirements. Very short lines can reduce
the power of discrimination of products by judges, while very
long lines prevent the judges from being accurate in their
assessments.
The collected data are measured within an interval; how-
ever, they must be considered as ordinal, as explained for the
nine-point hedonic scale.
The use of unstructured or linear hedonic scale has the
advantage of giving judges more freedom to express their sen-
sory perceptions; reduce contextual effects; accurately assess
the acceptance, because it is possible to mark any point on
the scale; and present data with smaller deviations from nor-
mality than the nine-point hedonic scale. However, its use is
limited because it is more difficult to understand, thus slowing
sensory evaluation.
Magnitude Estimation
In this method, the judges are required to provide numbers for
the samples, without restriction, so the magnitude of values
can reflect the magnitude of acceptance of the products. As
with other hedonic scales, the scale used is bipolar, with pos-
itive numbers representing the acceptance of products, nega-
tive numbers representing rejection, and an intermediate value
of 0 (neutral point). The magnitude of acceptance of a sample
can be easily estimated and interpreted by comparison. For
example, if a sample is positioned at þ50 and another sample
is positioned at þ25, it means that the first one is twice more
accepted than the second one.
Such method has some advantages when compared to the
category or linear scales. First, as the judges can use any num-
ber to express the hedonic response, scale size is not restricted
and therefore there is no problem of not using the extremes.
Secondly, inferences can be made about the magnitude of the
differences among samples. Therefore, in the case of product
reformulation, it is possible to quantify how much an ingredi-
ent of higher cost would increase the acceptance of a product
and thus assess whether its replacement would be convenient.
In other methods (such as nine-point hedonic scale), this
quantification of the difference in acceptance is not possible.
Furthermore, the magnitude estimation method has higher
power to reveal differences among samples when the number
of products to be evaluated is large or the number of samples is
few but very acceptable ones.
Obviously, the method has important limitations: (1) As all
assessments are made comparing the products with each other
and each judge can choose his/her own values on the scale,
there is no general rule in the assessment, so there is no
certainty that a magnitude of 9 means the same thing to all
748 Sensory Evaluation: Sensory Rating and Scoring Methods
judges, and therefore, comparisons among the values assigned
by individuals have no meaning; (2) the absence of a label
(e.g., ‘disliked very much’) makes difficult the translation of
numbers into perceptions of acceptance; (3) it does not pro-
vide ordinal data on the acceptance or rejection of products;
(4) the numerical nature of the method, using numbers to
estimate the magnitude of the differences in acceptance, can
be a difficult task for the general population, so the quality of
the data obtained often depends on the judges’ experience or
training level; (5) there is a tendency among judges to use
rounded values, such as 5, 10, 20, and 100, casting doubt on
the validity of the method; and (6) data analysis is complex,
requiring normalization and standardization even before the
statistical analysis begins. Therefore, the magnitude estimation
scale requires very detailed instructions and practice with the
method, which cannot be achieved in experiments involving
consumers. For this reason, it is not widely adopted in applied
sensory research.
Hybrid Hedonic Scale
It is a linear scale (0–10) resulting from the combination of
structured and unstructured scales (Figure 5). The hybrid hedonic
scale is anchored with verbal labels on middle regions
(5 ¼ neither liked nor disliked) and extremes of scale
(0 ¼ disliked extremely and 10 ¼ liked extremely), which makes
it easier to be used by the consumer than the unstructured scale.
The other portions are marked with equidistant points in order to
better define the degree and direction of hedonic continuity.
Advantages attributed to this scale are the following: (1)
Since it is not restricted to a limited number of categories, it
provides better discrimination power; (2) it reduces errors by
0 5
disliked
extremely
Figure 5 Hybrid hedonic scale. Reproduced from Villanueva, N. D. M., Petenate, A. J. and Silva, M. A. A. P. (2005). Performance of the hybrid hedonic
scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Quality and Preference 16, 691–703.
Most imaginable
Extremely
Like
Very much
Moderately
Slightly
Neutral
Slightly
Moderately
Dislike
Very much
Extremely
Most imaginable
LHS LAM
Figure 6 Category-ratio scales. Reproduced from Lim, J., Wood, A. and Green, B.G. (2009). Derivation and Evaluation of a Labeled Hedonic Scale.
Chemical Sciences 34: 739–751.
adaptation (repeating the answers when there are a number of
products), encouraging the judge to conduct the evaluation in a
more conscious and discerning manner; (3) it reduces or elim-
inates the numerical and contextual effects, allowing its use in
cross-cultural studies; and (4) it generates continuous data,
allowing a safer use of parametric or nonparametric analyses.
Category-Ratio Scales
Discussions focusing on the validity and superiority of category
or magnitude scales fostered the proposition of a new type of
scale containing the strengths of both. The category-ratio scale
is linear and has verbal descriptors positioned according to the
semantic magnitude, with the positions determined empiri-
cally by magnitude estimation.
The first category-ratio scale was developed for the evalua-
tion of the intensity of oral sensations, which was called oral
labeled magnitude scale (LMS). This scale had the term
‘without sensation’ at the lower end and ‘strongest imaginable
oral sensation of any kind’ at the upper end, with five addi-
tional descriptors spaced in a quasi-logarithmic manner. After
a few years, there were discussions about the top of the scale, as
it was considered that oral sensations were different among
individuals due to differences in the tongue anatomy and that
the correct action should be anchoring the top end more
generally. Thus, the upper anchor was replaced by ‘strongest
imaginable sensation of any kind,’ and this scale was called
general version (gLMS) (Figure 6).
One of the first scales developed for purposes of product
acceptance was LAM, in which the labels were derived from the
nine-point hedonic scale, with two additional anchors:
10
neither liked liked
nor disliked extremely
Strongest imaginable
Very strong
Strong
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Very strong
Strongest imaginable
OPUS gLMS
 Sensory Evaluation: Sensory Rating and Scoring Methods
‘greatest imaginable like’ and ‘greatest imaginable dislike.’ The
development of the scale followed the procedures used in the
creation of LMS.
After that, other scales have been developed ((hedonic)
gLMS, OPUS, etc.), with advantages and disadvantages, such
as incorrect quantification of the magnitude of acceptance,
inappropriate descriptors, and inappropriate spacing among
descriptors.
A few years ago, a group of researchers developed the LHS,
using a procedure similar to that used in the development of
LMS and comparing the magnitude estimation and nine-point
hedonic scales. The LHS generated data identical to those
obtained by the magnitude estimation, validating the position-
ing of descriptors and assuming that the magnitude of accep-
tance can be quantified. In addition, it had the power of sample
discrimination slightly higher than that of hedonic scale and
greater resistance to the effects of nonuse of the scale extremes,
resulting in data with a more normal distribution.
The advantages of category-ratio scales, especially LHS, are
as follows: (1) They generate magnitude data, making them
possible, for example, to evaluate the relationship between the
acceptance and the amount of a given ingredient and how
much a sample is more accepted than another one (product
A is three times more accepted than product B); (2) it is
possible to translate the numerical data into perceptions of
acceptance, because the positions of the category labels were
determined; (3) since they are continuous scales, the judges are
not confined to a limited number of categories; (4) by present-
ing more spaced anchors (most liked/disliked sensations imag-
inable), scale sensitivity is increased when discriminating
samples, especially those that are very or little accepted; (5)
data on the acceptance are normally distributed, so parametric
analyses can be applied requiring no preliminary processing of
data; and (6) the scales as well as the nine-point hedonic scale
are easy to use, although they require instructions and practice
so that the data obtained are reliable.
The disadvantages of this type of scale would be as follows:
(1) As the anchors are far away from the other categories, there
could be a compression of ratings in the center of the scale,
reducing its power of discrimination, and (2) it can be misused
by some groups of judges such as those with lower education
or who are already used to other scales. For example, it was
observed that many judges performed evaluations of samples
only at the positions where the labels were located, making it a
category scale. Therefore, instructions on the use of the scale
are of vital importance for obtaining reliable data.
Conclusions
In this article, the four basic types of scales used in sensory
evaluation of food were presented: nominal, ordinal, interval,
and ratio. The main properties of the methods with scale were
listed, emphasizing the use in acceptance testing. By describing
the properties, advantages, and limitations of the methods
with scales used in acceptance testing, we do not intend to
show the superiority of a single method compared to others,
but direct the researcher’s choice of the appropriate and valid
method, according to the study objective.
749
From demands of users of sensory analysis, it is expected
that researches are conducted for the development of new
methodologies with scales to evaluate the acceptance of prod-
ucts by consumers, in order to quantify the magnitude of
differences among samples and segment consumers according
to the preference. One has to keep in mind, however, that not
always what is new is the best. On the other hand, it is not
because a methodology has been used for years that it has no
disadvantages.
Further Reading
Almli VL, Ovrum A, Hersleth M, Almoy T, and Naes T (2015) Investigating individual
preferences in rating and ranking conjoint experiments. A case study on semi-hard
cheese. Food Quality and Preference 39: 28–39.
Cardello AV and Schutz HG (2006) Sensory science: measuring consumer acceptance.
In: Hui YH (ed.) Handbook of, food science and technology, vol. 2, pp. 1–8. CRC
Taylor & Francis. Chapter 56.
Feng Y-H, Gutiérrez-Salomón AL, Angulo O, O’mahony M, and Wichchukiti S (2014)
Data from ‘words only’ and ‘numbers only’ 9-point hedonic scales are not
interchangeable for serial monadic as well as rank-rating protocols: aspects of
memory and culture. Food Quality and Preference 41: 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.004.
Green BG, Schaffer GS, and Gilmore MM (1993) Derivation and evaluation of a
semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties. Chemical
Senses 18: 683–702.
Guest S, Essick G, Patel A, Prajapati R, and McGlone F (2007) Labeled magnitude
scales for oral sensations of sweetness, dryness, pleasantness and unpleasantness.
Food Quality and Preference 18: 342–352.
Gutiérrez-Salomón AL, Gámbaro A, and Ângulo O (2014) Influence of sample
presentation protocol on the results of consumer tests. Journal of Sensory Studies
29: 219–232.
Jaeger SR, Jorgensen AS, Aaslyng MD, and Bredie WLP (2008) Best-worst scale: an
introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation
with food products. Food Quality and Preference 19: 579–588.
Land DG and Sheperd R (1988) Scaling and ranking methods. In: Piggott JR (ed.)
Sensory analysis of foods. London: Elsevier.
Lawless HT, Popper R, and Kroll BJ (2010) A comparison of the labeled magnitude
(LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale.
Food Quality and Preference 21: 4–12.
Lim J (2011) Hedonic scaling: a review of methods and theory. Food Quality and
Preference 22: 733–747.
Lim J, Wood A, and Gren BG (2009) Derivation and evaluation of a labeled hedonic
scale. Chemical Senses 34: 739–751.
McEwan, J. A. and Lyon, D. H. (2003). Sensory evaluation | Sensory rating and scoring
methods. In: Caballero, B. (ed.) Encyclopedia of food sciences and nutrition, pp.
5148–5152. Elsevier.
Meilgaard MC, Carr BT, and Civille GV (2006) Sensory evaluation techniques, 4th ed.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Moskowitz HR, Dravnieks AL, and Klarman L (1976) Odor intensity and pleasantness:
evidence for different psychological laws. Science 184: 583–585.
Nicolas L, Marquilly C, and O´Mahony M (2010) The 9-point hedonic scale:
are words and numbers compatible? Food Quality and Preference
21: 1008–1015.
Peryam DR and Pilgrimm FJ (1957) Hedonic scale method of measuring food
preferences. Food Technology 11: 9–14.
Schiffersteinm HNJ (2012) Labeled magnitude scales: a critical review. Food Quality
and Preference 26: 151–158.
Schutz HG and Cardello AV (2001) A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for
assessing food liking/disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies 16: 117–159.
Stevens SS (1946) On the theory of scales of measurement. Science
103: 677–680.
Villanueva NDM, Petenate AJ, and Silva MAAP (2005) Performance of the hybrid
hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking
scales. Food Quality and Preference 16: 691–703.
Wichchhukit S and O’Mahony M (2014) The 9-point hedonic scale ranking in food
science: some reappraisals and alternatives. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6993.