Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 611–620

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

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

Proposing a ranking descriptive sensory method

Vanessa Bragato Richter a, Tereza Cristina Avancini de Almeida b, Sandra Helena Prudencio c,
Marta de Toledo Benassi c,*
a
Departamento de Alimentação Escolar, Prefeitura de Guaira, Av. Cel. Otávio Costa, 126, 85980-000 Guairá, PR, Brazil
b
Secretaria Municipal de Saúde, Prefeitura de Campinas, Avenida Anchieta, 200, 13015-904 Campinas, SP, Brazil
c
Depto. de Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, CP 6001, 86051-970 Londrina, PR, Brazil

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

Article history: The objective of this work was to propose an alternative use to ranking method, as descriptive test, here
Received 3 September 2009 named Ranking Descriptive Analysis (RDA). RDA was compared with Free-Choice Profiling (FCP) and
Received in revised form 18 March 2010 Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA). Four chocolate puddings were used as samples. A group of
Accepted 18 March 2010
assessors performed FCP. Another group of selected assessors developed a list of attributes and their cor-
Available online 27 March 2010
responding definitions. These assessors were divided into two groups: a panel was trained to perform the
QDA and other panel was familiarised with the RDA procedures. Sample discrimination was similar using
Keywords:
the three techniques. The RDA panel showed better consensus than the other two ones. The QDA showed
Ranking
Descriptive analysis
the best correlation with the instrumental analysis of color and texture. Despite the larger number of
Free-Choice Profiling assessors, RDA has the advantage of minor costs associated with the requirement of fewer sessions
Quantitative Descriptive Analysis and a smaller amount of product than required by other techniques.
Generalized Procrustes Analysis Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pudding

1. Introduction figuration to a consensus configuration, transforming the results to

The objective of descriptive methods is to characterise the sen-
sory properties of a product, using a panel that evaluates the sam-
ples qualitatively and quantitatively (Murray, Delahunty, & Baxter,
2001).
A well-known descriptive method is Quantitative Descriptive
Analysis (QDA), which allows the characteristics of the product
to be quantified, thus enabling a statistical treatment of the data.
The QDA is appropriate when an evaluation requires detailed infor-
mation on the sensory profile, identification, and quantification of
the attributes. It allows the comparison of similar products, corre-
lations with instrumental measures, and can be used to define the
standard for quality control (Meilgaard, Civille, & Carr, 1999). Qual-
ified assessors who have undergone long and expensive training
are used to provide reliable and consistent results (Stone & Sidel,
1998).
An alternative descriptive method, the Free-Choice Profiling
(FCP), offers assessors the freedom to use descriptive terms in
the amount and the way that they desire, reducing analysis time
because training is not necessary. The results are evaluated by
Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), which fit each assessor con-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 43 33714987; fax: +55 43 33714565.
E-mail addresses: vanessa_nutricao@guaira.pr.gov.br (V.B. Richter), tereza_al
meida@uol.com.br (T.C.A. de Almeida), sandrah@uel.br (S.H. Prudencio), martatb@
uel.br (M. de Toledo Benassi).
prevent variations in the use of the scale or the interpretation of
the attributes (Dijksterhuis & Gower, 1991; Gower, 1975; Williams
& Langron, 1984). The GPA can be used for other descriptive anal-
yses to verify efficiency, repeatability, and consensus of the group
(Rodrigue, Guillet, Fortin, & Martin, 2000).
The ranking test is traditionally used as a discriminative test to
compare many samples that are presented simultaneously (Meilg-
aard et al., 1999). Because of the simplicity of the procedure, the
ranking technique has been used in consumer studies (Barylko-
Pikielna et al., 2004; Hein, Jaeger, Carr, & Delahunty, 2008; Lee,
Hout, & O’Mahony, 2007; Lee & O’Mahony, 2005; Liem, Mars, &
Graaf, 2004; Villanueva, Petenate, & Da Silva, 2005) and in the eval-
uation of the efficiency of panels with different levels of training
(Kim & O’Mahony, 1998; McEwan, 1999).
Despite the inherent differences between the techniques, their
one common objective is to determine differences between the
products’ attributes. The QDA and the FCP use a scale to measure
the differences in intensity for each attribute. On the other hand,
the ranking test presents ordinal results of intensity of the attri-
butes; however, the magnitude of the differences is not obtained.
One of the primary difficulties in traditional descriptive meth-
ods is the use of the scale itself and the consistency/repeatability
of scores attributed to the sample. Observing the assessors’ behav-
iour during QDA training sessions, Kim and Mahoney (1998) veri-
fied that assessors often first organize the samples by intensity
order of an attribute and then distribute samples in the scale.

0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.011
612 V.B. Richter et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 611–620
Ranking seems to be a facilitating procedure. There are situations
in which the interest is not in the value on the scale, but whether
there are significant differences among products and if so, in which
attributes and in which ‘‘ranking order”.
Dairou and Sieffermann (2002) proposed a variant of FCP,
named Flash Profile (FP), and compared its efficiency with a con-
ventional profile method. FP was a combination of free-choice
terms selection with a ranking method based on simultaneous pre-
sentation of the products set. Delarue and Sieffermann (2004) com-
pared FP and a conventional descriptive method in the evaluation
of flavor of two kinds of fruit dairy products: yogurts and chesses.
Similar profiles were obtained by the two methods and the main
benefits of FP were its rapidity and easy of use. However, the
authors pointed that the semantic consensus obtained in the con-
ventional profile allowed a more accurate description of the
products.
Rodrigue et al. (2000) also suggested that a ranking test could
be used in the description of a product. After four training sessions,
a trained panel of eight assessors evaluated 10 attributes of sweet
corn using the conventional method. An untrained panel of 20
assessors performed the same task on the same samples using a
ranking procedure, but only one session was conducted to familiar-
ise assessors with samples and ranking procedures. The results
from both methods were similar in terms of overall product dis-
crimination, but slight discrepancies were found in the discrimi-
nating attributes between panels. The findings suggest that when
time is insufficient to train a panel, the use of an untrained panel
and ranking test should be considered.
Although Rodrigue et al. (2000) and Delarue and Sieffermann
(2004) have described a good performance by a ranking panel, they
also considered that other studies would be necessary to verify
whether ranking tests could be used fruitfully or adapted to a
wider range of products and a greater number of attributes. An-
other consideration is that in the study described by Rodrigue
et al. (2000), the attributes were pre-defined and not developed
by the panels, although they were validated by the panel. For un-
trained and completely naive assessors, grasping the relation be-
tween attribute and perception in one session could be a difficult
task. A standardisation of samples’ characteristics, assessors’ sensi-
bility, and the development of attributes by the panels would allow
a better comparison of the efficiency of the methods.
Chocolate pudding was chosen as sample in the current work
because it is easy to prepare, it allows definition and control of dif-
ferences in appearance, aroma, flavor, and texture attributes and it
has been frequently used in descriptive methods studies in the lit-
erature (Kilcast & Clegg, 2002; Lethuaut et al., 2005; Weenen, Jell-
ema, & Wijk, 2005; Wijk, Gemert, Terpstra, & Wilkinson, 2003;
Wijk, Prinz, & Janssen, 2006).
The objective of this study was to propose a descriptive sensory
method of simple and fast application for situations in which the
magnitude of attributes or the distance between categories is less
relevant. The method, here called Ranking Descriptive Analysis
(RDA), was compared to two traditional descriptive methods,
Quantitative Descriptive Analysis and the Free-Choice Profiling,
using chocolate puddings with sugar and different sweeteners as
the sample.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Samples
Four formulations of chocolate pudding were used. Commercial
powder cocoa, thickener carragena gum, sugar, and three sweeten-
ers in different amounts were added to a basic mixture of commer-
cial powder skimmed milk (100 g) and commercial starch of maize
(50 g) (Table 1). The formulations, based on Iop, Beleia, and Silva
(1999), were developed to present differences in the characteristics
of color, texture, aroma, and flavor. In preliminary tests was also
considered that the formulations should reflect commercial prod-
ucts that were studied in previous researches (Oliveira & Benassi,
2010; Oliveira, Frasson, Almeida, & Benassi, 2004). The puddings
were prepared with water (1 L) and cooked under constant agita-
tion until boiling (12 min). Then, they were removed from heat,
agitated for 2 min, and conditioned in proper containers according
to the analysis. The samples were covered, to prevent drying, and
stored under refrigeration (7 ± 2 °C) for approximately 20 h before
analysis.
2.2. Instrumental evaluation of color and texture
For texture evaluation, the puddings were conditioned in
smooth plastic cups of 50 mL, 4.8 cm in diameter and 4 cm in
height. The samples were analysed (15 repetitions) using a textu-
rometer TAX-T2 (Stable Micro Systems) (Surrey, England), using
cylindrical stainless probe P35, distance of penetration of 3 mm
and force of 0.05 N. Hardness (N), cohesiveness (dimensionless),
springiness (dimensionless), adhesiveness (Ns), and gumminess
(N) were evaluated.
For color analysis, samples were conditioned in Petri plates of
9 cm in diameter (three plates for sample). The readings were
made (three repetitions for plate) using colorimeter Minolta
CR10 (Tokyo, Japan), with a reading area of 8 mm, lighting CIE
D65, and observer standard CIE 10° angle. The colorimeter directly
supplied the values of L* (lightness), a* (red–green component),
and b* (yellow–blue component) and the hue (H* = arc tang
(b*/a*)) was calculated.
A randomised design was applied and the results were submit-
ted to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey test (p < 0.05)
(STATSOFT STATISTICA for Windows – Program manual, 1995).
2.3. Sensory analyses
2.3.1. Testing procedure and glossary development
Samples (40 mL) were served cold (taken immediately from the
refrigerator) in covered 100 mL transparent plastic cups, labelled
with random-three digit codes. White light was used and the pre-
sentation order was randomised by session.
Attribute terms for the evaluation of samples in the three
methods were developed by the panel using the methodology de-
scribed in Moskowitz (1983). Assessors were requested to record
the similarities and differences between each sample. Two ses-
sions were conducted. In each session, a pair of samples was pre-
sented by session, in order to obtain the highest possible number
of attributes with regard to appearance, flavor, texture, and aro-
ma. One pair was composed of samples B and C and the other
Table 1
Other ingredients of pudding formulations (in gram).
Ingredients Samples
A B C D
(g) (g) (g) (g)
Commercial powder cocoa (10–12% of fat) 16 16 20 12
Carragena GENULACTA type LP-60 (CPKelco, USA) 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.10
Sugar (commercial sucrose) 120
Commercial sweetener with maltodextrine, 20
sucralose and acesulfame potassium
Commercial sweetener with maltodextrine, sodium 20
saccharin, sodium cyclamate and sodium citrate
Commercial sweetener with maltodextrine, stevia 6
and silicium dioxide
 V.B. Richter et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 611–620
pair, samples A and D. A detailed description of the glossary
development for each method is presented on the next sections
(2.3.2 and 2.3.3).
In the three studied methods, during evaluation sessions, asses-
sors received the developed glossary with the correspondent score
sheet. For each panel, a protocol with instructions was offered
reminding how to observe appearance, odour, flavor, texture, and
mouthfeel after swallowing.
For texture, it was emphasized that the assessor would need to
cut the sample with the spoon, to compress a portion of the sample
between the tongue and the palate, and ‘‘to chew” the sample until
ready to swallow. The protocol was fixed in the booth during all of
the evaluation sessions. For the FCP, the protocol was only used to
facilitate the evaluation. For QDA and RDA, the protocol was the
group consensus’ result.
2.3.2. Free-Choice Profile
Fourteen assessors participated in the FCP. After the develop-
ment of the attributes, individual score sheets and a specific list
of each assessor’s definition of attributes were elaborated. The
attributes varied in number, from 7 to 13, with an average of 10
per assessor. Attributes were evaluated using an unstructured
9 cm scale anchored in the endpoints with intensity terms. To ver-
ify the score sheets’ adequacy, the presentation for the descriptive
test was simulated in two sessions. Three samples were evaluated
in each session: A, B and D in the first session; B, C and A in the sec-
ond session. The assessors could modify their score sheets, remov-
ing or including attributes, changing terms in the endpoints of the
scales, and improving definitions.
For evaluation, a balanced incomplete blocks design for four
samples was used, with t = 4, k = 3, r = 3, b = 4, k = 2, E = 89. The re-
sults were analysed by Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA),
using the Senstools program Version 2.3.28 (OP, 1998).
In a preliminary analysis of the results, to verify panel’s perfor-
mance, the general configuration of the assessors, the residual vari-
ances, and the individual configuration of the samples by each
assessor were observed. Two assessors that presented low discrim-
ination capacity, poor repeatability and lack of consensus with the
group (residual variance superior to 1.5%, and individual configura-
tion of samples different from the consensus plot and higher dis-
tances between samples repetition), had their results removed
and the data analysis was repeated. The criterion adopted for con-
sensual description of samples was to consider the attributes with
highest correlation (minimum |0.5|) in each dimension for each
assessor.
2.3.3. Quantitative Descriptive Analysis and Ranking Descriptive
Analysis
2.3.3.1. Pre-selection. Initially 47 assessors have participated in a
series of preliminary tests to evaluate their performance for aroma
and basic tastes recognition, discrimination of color and hardness
intensity. For aroma recognition, the minimum criterion was 70%
correct answers. Approved assessors were then submitted to a test
of recognition of basic tastes, while assessors who did not identify
at least one of the standard solutions to each basic taste were re-
moved from the panel (Penna, 1980).
To evaluate the discrimination capacity for hardness and color
intensities, ranking tests were applied, as in Meilgaard et al.
(1999). The criterion adopted was 100% correct answers. For hard-
ness, four samples of puddings were used, formulated as described
for the sample A (Table 1) but with different starch concentrations:
40, 50, 70, and 90 g. The samples were evaluated by Instrumental
Texture Profile and presented the following values of hardness:
0.69, 1.32, 4.2, and 6.7 N, similar to observed in commercial prod-
ucts (Oliveira & Benassi, 2010). For color, the samples were stand-
613
ardised with skimmed milk and brown food colourants. After the
tests, the group was composed of 33 selected assessors.
2.3.3.2. Definition of the descriptive terminology. After attributes
development, assessors selected the most frequent terms to com-
pose the score sheet. In a second session, assessors defined attri-
butes and developed a consensus evaluation procedure using the
suggested samples and market products as qualitative references
(Table 2).
A final session was conducted to verify the consensus on the list
of attributes, glossary, and protocol of instructions. After this
phase, the assessors were randomly divided into two panels, one
panel with 21 people for the RDA and the other with 12 people
for the QDA. Training and samples evaluation of each panel were
conducted separately.
2.3.3.3. Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA). Three sessions were
necessary for assessors to reach consensus on reference samples
that represented the extremities of the scale for each attribute
and form elaboration. After this stage, four sessions were con-
ducted for training in the use of the scales (Table 2). The score
sheet was composed of unstructured 9 cm line scales anchored in
the end points with intensity terms.
At the final selection of assessors, four samples were used. To
avoid an extreme familiarisation with samples that would be later
evaluated, only sample C was used. The other two products were
formulated in a manner similar to sample A, but with different
starch concentrations (40 and 70 g) (Section 2.3.3.1). A commercial
pudding characterised with regard to color (L* = 31 and H* = 38)
and hardness (0.43 N) was also used. The presentation order of
the four samples followed the statistical design of the FCP.
To evaluate the discrimination and repeatability abilities of the
assessors, a two factor (samples and repetitions) ANOVA and an F
test for each attribute were conducted. To select assessors by dis-
crimination ability, they had to present values of Fsamples with a
maximum level of significance of 50% (p < 0.50). For repeatability,
assessors with values of Frepetitions with a minimum level of signif-
icance of 5% were selected (p < 0.05). For evaluation of the agree-
ment of the assessor with the panel, the average individual
scores were compared to panel scores.
Samples were evaluated in four sessions using the design of the
FCP. Results were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for
two sources of variation (samples and assessors) and an interaction
of sample  assessor, as well as a multiple comparison Tukey test
(p < 0.05). In cases of significant Finteraction sample  assessor, the main
effects (samples) were tested against interaction mean square data.
The results were also analysed by GPA, as described for the FCP.
2.3.3.4. Ranking Descriptive Analysis (RDA). One training session
was conducted to demonstrate the score sheet used in the RDA.
Two posterior sessions were used to define a more specific protocol
for RDA. Samples were served at a table and the assessors were re-
quested to evaluate all of the attributes so that the panel arrived at
a consensus on the procedure and amount of sample to be served.
Due to the number of attributes, the panel opted to evaluate the
samples in two phases sequentially: one for analysis of appearance
and aroma attributes and another for texture and flavor attributes.
To familiarise assessors with the score sheet and attributes and
to verify the efficiency of the protocol, a test with four samples was
conducted. The same products used in the final selection of the
assessors in QDA were used. The assessors had considered the pro-
cedure to be adequate (score sheet, attributes, and protocol) and
the observed results showed that the panel was able to rank the
products.
The evaluation of the samples by RDA was completed in one
session in which, for each attribute, samples were ordered by
614 V.B. Richter et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 611–620

Table 2
Attributes, definitions and references used by QDAa,b and RDAb panels to describe the sensory properties of chocolate puddings.

Attributea Definitiona Qualitative referencea Quantitative referenceb

Ò
Brown color Brown color intensity Semi-sweet dark chocolate bar (Garoto ); milk Light: milk chocolate (GarotoÒ)
chocolate (GarotoÒ) Dark: semi-sweet dark chocolate bar (GarotoÒ)
Homogeneousness Smooth, appearance with absence of Creamy yogurt and consistent yogurt Low: creamy yogurt
lumps or bubbles Much: consistent yogurt
Brightness Intensity of light reflection in the product, Sample A cover with oil; chocolate cream desert Low: sample A
brightness intensity, opposite of opaque (DanetteÒ) and sample A with different starch Much: chocolate cream desert (DanetteÒ)
content (20 and 35 g)
Chocolate aroma Chocolate aroma intensity Semi-sweet dark chocolate bar (GarotoÒ), milk Weak: milk chocolate (GarotoÒ)
chocolate (GarotoÒ) Intense: semi-sweet dark chocolate bar
(GarotoÒ)
Chocolate flavor Chocolate flavor intensity, characteristic Semi-sweet dark chocolate bar (GarotoÒ), milk Weak: milk chocolate (GarotoÒ)
of chocolate chocolate (GarotoÒ) Intense: semi-sweet dark chocolate bar
(GarotoÒ)
Sweet taste Sweet taste intensity, sugar taste Water solutions (1 L) with different content of Weak: milk dispersion (0.5 L) with
sugar: 200, 100, 50 and 10 g unsweetened cocoa powder (15 g) and sugar
(30 g)
Intense: milk dispersion (0.5 L) with
unsweetened cocoa powder (15 g) and sugar
(30 g)
Residual bitter Residual bitter taste intensity; persistence Water solutions (1 L) with different sweeteners: None: milk dispersion (0.5 L) with
taste of bitter taste in the mouth after sugar (10 g), sucralose and acesufame-k (10 g), unsweetened cocoa powder (15 g) and sugar
swallowing the sample; off-taste of saccharin and cyclamate (10 g) and stevia (10 g) (50 g)
sweetener Intense: milk dispersion (0.5 L) with
unsweetened cocoa powder (15 g) and
commercial sweetener with saccharin and
cyclamate (15 g)
Consistency Force required to obtain a given Sample A with different starch content: 20, 25, 30 Low: sample A with 40 g of starch
deformation, observed in the mouth or and 35 g Much: sample A with 70 g of starch
cutting with spoon
Creaminess Capacity to dissolve homogeneously in the Chocolate cream desert (DanetteÒ) Low: sample A with 40 g of starch
mouth Much: chocolate cream desert (DanetteÒ)
a
Applied for QDA and RDA.
b
Applied for QDA.

increasing intensity. The results were evaluated using Friedman 3.2. Sensory characterisation
test (Newell & MacFarlane, 1987) to evaluate sample differences
for each attribute. In order to compare the configuration obtained 3.2.1. Evaluation of assessor’s performance: comparison among panel’s
with those observed in the two other methods, data was also eval- behaviour
uated by GPA, as described for the FCP. Analysis of the general configuration and residual variance of
assessors of each panel demonstrated that there was consensus
3. Results in the three panels, without behaviour discrepancies among mem-
bers (Figs. 1 and 2).
3.1. Instrumental characterisation of texture and color The QDA panel (Figs. 1B and 2B), which received quantitative
training, and the FCP panel (Figs. 1A and 2A), which did not receive
Pudding samples showed different texture and color profiles training, showed a greater dispersion of the assessors in the gen-
(Table 3). Sample D was characterised as more firm and gummy eral configuration and in the residual variance (maximum of 1.2%
than puddings B and C and it was also identified as more clear and 1.5%, respectively) than the RDA panel; which showed less dis-
and yellowish than the others. Pudding C was differentiated as persion and a low residual variance (0.5%) (Figs. 1C and 2C).
the darkest sample, less hard and gummy, and more elastic than
samples A and B. Sample B was characterised as the least adhesive
3.2.2. Samples evaluation
and presented intermediate values of hardness, lightness, and hue.
Fig. 3A and B show configuration of samples consensus in the
Sample A was the most reddish sample.
FCP and the QDA; the products are represented by triangles that
indicate the repeatability (the higher the distance between the ver-
Table 3 tices, the less repeatability). Both panels presented good repeat-
Instrumental characterisation of textureA and color.B,C ability for all samples.
The attributes better correlated with the first two dimensions
Attributes Samples
for each assessor were represented for FCP (Table 4), QDA (Table
A B C D
5) and RDA (Table 6) panels. To facilitate the evaluation and com-
ab b c
Hardness (N) 1.7 ± 0.2 1.6 ± 0.2 1.4 ± 0.1 1.8 ± 0.1a parison between methods, there were considered the attributes
Adhesiveness (Ns) 0.4 ± 0.1a 0.2 ± 0.2b 0.4 ± 0.5a 0.4 ± 0.1a
that presented higher correlation (minimum |0.5|) in each dimen-
Springiness 0.86 ± 0.05b 0.86 ± 0.05b 0.89 ± 0.0a 0.90 ± 0.01a
Cohesiveness 0.57 ± 0.02a 0.57 ± 0.01a 0.57 ± 0.02a 0.57 ± 0.12a sion for each assessor.
Gummines (N) 0.99 ± 0.12ab 0.93 ± 0.09b 0.81 ± 0.07c 1.04 ± 0.06a Considering the consensus configuration, 38% of the observed
Lightness 36.5 ± 0.2b 36.5 ± 1.2b 35.2 ± 0.6c 38.5 ± 0.4a variability was explained for the FCP. Dimension 1, responsible
Hue 46.4 ± 0.4c 47.9 ± 0.4b 47.9 ± 0.6b 49.5 ± 2.1a for 25% of the variance, could be explained (in the negative direc-
A
Average of 15 analyses ± standard deviation. tion) for the attributes brown color, sweet taste, and chocolate fla-
B
Average of nine analyses ± standard deviation. vor. These terms had high correlation for most of the panel
C
Different letters in the same line indicates significant differences (p < 0.05). members (nine assessors). Pudding D, located at the right side,
 V.B. Richter et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 611–620
Fig. 1. Graphic representation of the assessors dispersion along the two first
dimensions: general configuration of assessors in FCP (A), QDA (B) and RDA (C)
panels. Numbers (1–21) indicates assessors.
was considered the clearest sample, with less sweet taste and
chocolate flavor. The samples configured at the left side, B, A, and
C (in this sequence), were characterised as presenting more ac-
cented color and flavor of chocolate, and also more sweet taste.
Dimension 2 (13% of the variance) separated samples primarily
by bitter taste and residual bitter taste. Puddings C and D, located
in the superior part of the graph, were characterised by higher
intensity of bitter taste (Fig. 3A, Table 4).
In the QDA method, the first two dimensions were responsible
for 46% of the variance (32% for dimension 1 and 14% for dimension
2). Dimension 1 was explained, in the negative direction, by attri-
615
Fig. 2. Residual variance (%) associate with each assessor in FCP (A), QDA (B) and
RDA (C) panels.
butes of brown color (12 assessors), chocolate flavor (10), choco-
late aroma (9), creaminess (8), and brightness (6), and, in the posi-
tive direction, by attribute consistency (5). Dimension 2 was
correlated negatively to sweet taste and positively to residual bit-
ter taste. Therefore, samples located at the upper side were charac-
terised by a higher intensity of residual bitter taste and lower
sweet taste. Samples configured at the left side were described as
more characteristic of chocolate (brown color, aroma and flavor
of chocolate) and those located towards the right side were charac-
terised as more consistent (Fig. 3B, Table 5).
616 V.B. Richter et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 611–620
Fig. 3. Two-dimensional consensus plot for chocolate puddings (A, B, C and D)
obtained by FCP (A), QDA (B) and RDA (C) methods. Triangle vertices represent one
of the three replicates analyses for each sample.
The mean values of the attributes’ intensity analysed by the
QDA panel are represented in Table 7. The analysis of the results
by ANOVA demonstrated that the formulations differed signifi-
cantly with relation to the attributes of appearance, aroma, flavor,
and texture. Sample D was characterised as being the most clear,
less creamy, more consistent, with highest residual bitter taste
and less sweet taste than the other samples. Pudding C presented
brown color, high aroma, and chocolate flavor and was the second
in intensity of residual bitter taste, when compared with the other
samples. Samples A and the B were not differentiated in intensity
of brown color and presented less residual bitter taste than
samples C and D, but sample B presented a less intense chocolate
flavor as compared to sample A (Tables 5 and 7, Fig. 3B).
In RDA method, the first two dimensions were responsible for
75% of the variance. Dimension 1 (51% of the variance) could be ex-
plained (in the negative direction) for the attributes brown color,
chocolate flavor, sweet taste, and chocolate aroma. Dimension 2
(24% of the variance) separated the samples, primarily for the attri-
bute bitter taste. The texture attributes correlated with two dimen-
sions, positive for creaminess and negative for consistency, in
dimension 1, with an inverse relationship in dimension 2
(Fig. 3C, Tables 6 and 8).
Table 8 shows the results of the RDA panel by the attributes
analysed. Pudding D was characterised as presenting the lightest
brown color and with lowest sweet taste, while pudding C had
the most intense chocolate aroma and flavor. These samples pre-
sented a residual bitter taste that was more intense than puddings
A and B. Samples A and B were significantly different in relation to
texture attributes, sample B was characterised as creamier and less
consistent as compared to sample A. Sample B and D presented
similar characteristics of texture.
3.3. Comparison of the applicability of the sensory methods
A comparison of the number of required assessors, number of
samples each assessor had to taste and time to run the tests for
each stage of the methods is detailed in Table 9.
4. Discussion
Comparing the panel’s performance on each method, it was ob-
served consensus among assessors in the three panels (Figs. 1 and
2). The greater consensus observed in the RDA panel was likely due
to the facility of the use of ordinal scales as compared with the use
of interval scales in the traditional descriptive techniques. FCP and
RDA panel’s presented good repeatability. Like others ranking tests,
RDA does not allow checking panel repeatability because just one
measure is taken for each sample (Fig. 3).
The comparison of the samples configuration of consensus ob-
tained by the three methods demonstrated that a higher amount
of variance (75%) was observed for the RDA compared with FCP
(38%) and ADQ (46%). This behaviour was already expected since
the results of RDA consisted in less complex data than the obtained
for FCP and QDA, allowing to show the main information in two
dimensions.
Comparing the samples distribution in RDA with FCP and QDA
(Fig. 3), similarities were observed in configuration (primarily in
dimension 1) and in the attributes more important to discrimina-
tion (Tables 4–6). Delarue and Sieffermann (2004) also obtained
similar results comparing the profiles obtained by conventional
descriptive method and a ranking procedure (FP). The largest dif-
ference in the samples distribution was observed in dimension 2,
in which samples A and B appeared more discriminated. The attri-
butes chocolate flavor and brown color in dimension 1 and residual
bitter taste in dimension 2 presented high correlation in the three
sensory methods. Both QDA and RDA assessors used aroma and
texture descriptor more consensually than the FCP panel (Fig. C,
Tables 4–6).
In general, consensus among the methods was observed. All of
the results were coherent for the discrimination of the products
and similar for the three panels. The same attributes were impor-
tant for the characterisation in the three sensory methods and all
samples were discriminated. It should be noted that the use of
GPA allowed the comparison of the performance of the three
panels.
 V.B. Richter et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 611–620 617

Table 4
Attributes better correlated (r) with the first two dimensions for each assessora on FCP.

Aa Dimension 1 Dimension 2
1 Brown color ( 0.78); sweet taste ( 0.95); chocolate flavor ( 0.78) and brightness ( 0.61) Bitter taste (0.72); crust thickness (0.50) and crust firmness (0.51)
2 Brown color ( 0.85); sweet taste ( 0.92); chocolate flavor ( 0.70) and brightness ( 0.69) Bitter taste (0.77) and chocolate aroma ( 0.54)
3 Brown color ( 0.65) and sweet taste ( 0.50) Bitter taste (0.52); residual bitter taste (0.50); chocolate aroma
(0.50) and syneresis (0.57)
4 Chocolate color ( 0.57); sweet taste ( 0.57); chocolate flavor ( 0.50); consistency Bitter taste (0.83); sour taste (0.86) and consistency ( 0.53)
(appearance) ( 0.56) and firmness (cut) (0.74)
6 Sweet taste ( 0.82); chocolate flavor ( 0.81) and bubbles ( 0.63) Bitter taste (0.69); residual bitter taste (0.71) and chocolate aroma
(0.51)
7 Brown color ( 0.76); sweet taste ( 0.50) and chocolate flavor ( 0.64) Bitter taste (0.59); chocolate aroma (0.52) and creamy texture
( 0.61)
8 Brown color ( 0.59) and sweet taste ( 0.88) Smooth surface (0.57); consistency (cut) (0.53) and
homogeneousness (0.53)
9 Sweet taste ( 0.74); chocolate flavor ( 0.72) and consistency (cut) (0.69) Surface crust (0.59)
10 Chocolate flavor ( 0.73); chocolate aroma (0.59) and homogeneous surface ( 0.69) Sweet taste ( 0.69)
11 Chocolate color ( 0.87); sweet taste ( 0.83); chocolate flavor ( 0.77); chocolate aroma Consistency (mouth) ( 0.50)
( 0.79) and homogeneousness ( 0.91)
13 Brown color (0.64); chocolate flavor ( 0.79); chocolate aroma ( 0.60) and consistency Sweet taste ( 0.65)
(cut) (0.76)
14 Brown color (0.60) and smooth surface (0.57) Bitter taste (0.69); sweet taste ( 0.71); chocolate flavor ( 0.58)
and viscosity (0.51)
a
Assessors were identified by numbers 1–14.

Table 5
Attributes better correlated (r) with the first two dimensions for each assessora on QDA.

A Dimension 1 Dimension 2
1 Brown color ( 0.88); chocolate aroma ( 0.78); chocolate flavor ( 0.67) and residual Creaminess ( 0.63); consistency (0.65) and sweet taste ( 0.55)
bitter taste (0.67)
2 Brown color ( 0.76); chocolate aroma ( 0.61) and chocolate flavor ( 0.71)) Homogeneousness (0.51) and sweet taste ( 0.73)
3 Brown color ( 0.73); chocolate aroma ( 0.75); creaminess ( 0.87); consistency (0.77) Chocolate flavor (0.73) and sweet taste ( 0.64)
and residual bitter taste (0.84)
4 Brown color ( 0.76); brightness ( 0.80); chocolate aroma ( 0.52); creaminess ( 0.64); Sweet taste ( 0.74) and residual bitter taste (0.87)
consistency (0.77) and chocolate flavor ( 0.50)
5 Brown color ( 0.87); brightness ( 0.51); chocolate aroma ( 0.69); creaminess ( 0.70); Sweet taste ( 0.51)
consistency (0.51); chocolate flavor ( 0.50) and residual bitter taste ( 0.68)
6 Brown color ( 0.85); brightness ( 0.82); homogeneousness ( 0.74); chocolate aroma Sweet taste ( 0.52); consistency ( 0.51) and residual bitter taste ( 0.50)
( 0.64)
and chocolate flavor ( 0.82)
7 Brown color ( 0.83); brightness ( 0.58); chocolate aroma ( 0.69); creaminess ( 0.85);
consistency (0.64); chocolate flavor ( 0.68); sweet taste ( 0.83) and residual bitter
taste (0.67)
8 Brown color ( 0.71); brightness ( 0.75); chocolate aroma ( 0.51); creaminess ( 0.60) Sweet taste ( 0.67) and residual bitter taste (0.51)
and chocolate flavor ( 0.71)
9 Brown color ( 0.72) and brightness ( 0.61) Residual bitter taste (0.53)
10 Brown color ( 0.78); creaminess ( 0.79); consistency (0.77) and chocolate flavor Sweet taste ( 0.65) and residual bitter taste (0.94)
( 0.72)
11 Brown color ( 0.81); creaminess ( 0.67); chocolate flavor ( 0.88) and sweet taste Residual bitter taste (0.64)
( 0.79)
12 Brown color ( 0.56); chocolate aroma ( 0.57) and creaminess ( 0.82) Sweet taste ( 0.81) and residual bitter taste (0.61)
a
Assessors were identified by numbers 1–12.

These results agreed with those described by Rodrigue et al.
(2000) in a study with two panels: one trained for descriptive anal-
ysis and another not trained for the ranking test. Results from the
study showed similarities between the trained and untrained pan-
els. These authors suggest that when time is insufficient to train a
panel, the use of an untrained panel and a ranking test should be
considered. However, we observed it was important to train a pa-
nel in order to obtain good descriptor conceptualisation and great-
er panel consensus.
Consensus across the characterisations of the samples obtained
the descriptive analysis methods (Fig. 3, Tables 4–6) and the
instrumental evaluation of color and texture (Table 3) was
observed.
With regard to appearance, instrumental measure of color de-
scribed sample D as the clearest sample and C as the darkest sam-
ple (Table 3). It agreed with the observed in all sensorial methods
that considered D as presenting the least intensity and C as the
most intensity of brown color (Fig. 3 and Tables 4–6). Samples A
and B, which were configured close in sensory methods with re-
gard to dimension 1 (high correlation with attribute brown color)
(Fig. 3 and Tables 4–6), did not present a difference in L* value (Ta-
ble 3).
In a general approach, similar profiles were observed in the
samples configuration by GPA for the three methods (Fig. 3, Tables
4–6). The three studied methods described similar intensity of
sweet taste and chocolate flavor in samples A and B, the highest
intensity of these attributes in sample C, and the lowest in sample
D. Samples C and D were described as presenting a higher residual
bitter taste than samples A and B.
The QDA and RDA panels presented similar results for aroma
attribute, both characterised sample C with intense aroma of choc-
olate (Tables 7 and 8).
618 V.B. Richter et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 611–620

Table 6
Attributes better correlated (r) with the first two dimensions for each assessora on RDA.

A Dimension 1
1 Brown color ( 0.99); homogeneousness ( 0.86) and creaminess ( 0.86)
2 Brown color ( 0.75); brightness ( 0.99); creaminess (0.76); consistency ( 0.76) and
chocolate flavor ( 0.99)
3 Brown color ( 0.99); brightness ( 0.99); homogeneousness ( 0.99); consistency
(0.86) and chocolate flavor ( 0.52)
4 Homogeneousness ( 0.86); brightness ( 0.76); chocolate aroma ( 0.76); creaminess
( 0.86); sweet taste ( 0.99); chocolate flavor ( 0.86) and residual bitter taste ( 0.99)
5 Brown color ( 0.75); homogeneousness ( 0.86); creaminess (0.76) and consistency
( 0.76)
6 Brown color ( 0.75); brightness (0.99); creaminess ( 0.76); sweet taste ( 0.86) and
residual bitter taste (0.86)
7 Brown color ( 0.99); brightness (0.99); chocolate flavor ( 0.76) and sweet taste
( 0.86)
8 Brown color ( 0.86); homogeneousness (0.86); chocolate aroma ( 0.99); creaminess
(0.99); consistency ( 0.99); chocolate flavor ( 0.76) and sweet taste ( 0.99)
9 Brown color ( 0.99); chocolate aroma ( 0.99); creaminess (0.75); consistency
( 0.75); chocolate flavor ( 0.99); sweet taste ( 0.99) and residual bitter taste (0.99)
10 Brown color ( 0.86); brightness (0.76); homogeneousness (0.86); chocolate aroma
( 0.86); creaminess (0.75); consistency ( 0.76); chocolate flavor ( 0.99) and sweet
taste ( 0.86)
11 Brown color ( 0.99); chocolate aroma ( 0.76); creaminess (0.99); consistency
( 0.99); chocolate flavor ( 0.99) and sweet taste ( 0.52)
12 Brown color ( 0.86); brightness (0.86); creaminess (0.75); consistency ( 0.75)
and sweet taste ( 0.86)
13 Chocolate flavor ( 0.99) and sweet taste ( 0.86)
14 Brown color ( 0.99); homogeneousness ( 0.75); chocolate aroma ( 0.99) and
chocolate flavor ( 0.76)
15 Brown color ( 0.99); brightness ( 0.99); homogeneousness ( 0.86); chocolate aroma
( 0.99); chocolate flavor ( 0.99); sweet taste ( 0.99) and residual bitter taste (0.99)
16 Brown color ( 0.99); brightness ( 0.86); homogeneousness ( 0.75); chocolate aroma
( 0.99); chocolate flavor ( 0.86) and sweet taste ( 0.86)
17 Brown color ( 0.99); chocolate flavor ( 0.86) and sweet taste ( 0.99)
18 Brown color ( 0.99); chocolate aroma ( 0.86); consistency ( 0.99) and chocolate
flavor ( 0.76)
19 Homogeneousness ( 0.99); chocolate aroma ( 0.86); creaminess (0.75); consistency
( 0.75) and sweet taste ( 0.86)
20 Brown color ( 0.99); brightness ( 0.99); homogeneousness (0.86); chocolate aroma
( 0.99); creaminess (0.76); consistency ( 0.76); chocolate flavor ( 0.86) and sweet
taste ( 0.86)
21 Brown color ( 0.99); chocolate aroma ( 0.76); creaminess (0.99); consistency
( 0.99); chocolate flavor ( 0.99) and sweet taste ( 0.75)
a
Assessors were identified by numbers 1–21.
Dimension 2
Brightness ( 0.84); consistency (0.92); chocolate flavor ( 0.82) and
residual bitter taste (0.82)
Chocolate aroma ( 0.82); residual bitter taste (0.51); creaminess
( 0.65) and consistency (0.65)
Creaminess ( 0.84) and residual bitter taste (0.51)
Brown color ( 0.84) and consistency (0.67)
Chocolate aroma ( 0.92); sweet taste ( 0.92) and residual bitter taste (0.92)
Consistency (0.67)
Chocolate aroma ( 0.92); creaminess ( 0.57) and consistency (0.57)
Brightness ( 0.92) and residual bitter taste (0.82)
Brightness ( 0.57)
Residual bitter taste (0.92)
Brightness ( 0.67) and residual bitter taste ( 0.57)
Homogeneousness ( 0.92); chocolate aroma (0.57); chocolate flavor
(0.82) and residual bitter taste (0.51)
Brown color ( 0.84); brightness (0.84); chocolate aroma ( 0.84);
creaminess (0.51); consistency ( 0.51) and residual bitter taste (0.51)
Brightness (0.92); sweet taste ( 0.92); residual bitter taste (0.82);
creaminess ( 0.57) and consistency (0.57)
Creaminess (0.84) and consistency (0.84)
Creaminess ( 0.67)
Homogeneousness ( 0.82); brightness (0.82); chocolate aroma (0.82);
creaminess ( 0.82); consistency (0.82) and residual bitter taste (0.92)
Brightness ( 0.82); creaminess ( 0.67); sweet taste ( 0.84) and
residual bitter taste (0.82)
Brown color ( 0.92); brightness ( 0.92); chocolate flavor (0.82) and
residual bitter taste (0.82)
Residual bitter taste (0.92)
Homogeneousness ( 0.92) and residual bitter taste (0.92)

Table 7 Table 8
Values of sensory attribute intensities analyzed by QDA.A,B Characterization of samples by RDA.A,B

Attributes Samples Attributes Samples

A B C D A B C D
b b a c ab b a
Brown color 4.3 3.9 7.5 1.6 Brown color 61 51 77 21c
Homogeneousness 4.8a 3.6a 3.4a 4.0a Homogeneousness 65a 55ab 54ab 36b
Brightness 4.2ab 4.2ab 5.3a 3.0b Bright 48a 58a 56a 48a
Chocolate aroma 4.5b 3.4bc 6.0a 2.4c Aroma 53ab 50b 74a 33b
Chocolate flavor 4.7b 3.0c 7.0a 2.4c Chocolate flavor 54b 43b 80a 33b
Sweet taste 5.1a 5.1a 3.9a 1.8b Sweet taste 56a 58a 72a 24b
Residual bitter taste 0.4c 1.4bc 3.5ab 5.3a Residual bitter taste 37b 39b 66a 69a
Consistency 3.4b 3.0b 3.4b 5.5a Consistency 70a 32c 64ab 44bc
Creaminess 5.5b 6.4ab 6.7a 3.3c Creaminess 36c 67a 45bc 62ab
A A
Mean of 12 assessors. Rank sums values of 21 assessors.
B B
Different letters in the same line indicates significant differences. Tukey test Different letters in the same line indicates significant differences (p 6 0.05)
(p < 0.05). according to Newell and MacFarlane (1987).

The greatest differentiation between the methods’ perfor-
mance was observed in texture evaluation. The QDA demon-
strated better correlation with the instrumental results,
considering sample B less consistent than D (Table 7). The RDA
panel considered sample A more consistent than B and D (Table
8). In the instrumental profile of texture, sample B presented
hardness and gumminess less intense than sample D (Table 3).
These parameters cold be associated with the sensory attribute
of consistency (Table 2). In this way, it seems that the qualitative
training (use of reference standards and glossary) was not suffi-
cient for the consensual use of texture attributes by QDA and
RDA panels.
 V.B. Richter et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 611–620
Table 9
Comparison of the requirements in the descriptive sensory methods studied.
a
Stages Pre-selection
Attributes developmenta
Definition of attributesa
Methods familiarisation
Training
Selection
Samples evaluation
Total of sessions
Number of assessors
Amount of sample (pudding units)
Analysis of results
a
Products, apart of samples, used in the selections and as standards had not been considered.
Comparing instrumental data with sensory methods, texture
attributes analysed by QDA showed good agreement. The assessors
of QDA and RDA were submitted to the same pre-selection tests and
they all participated in the attributes development, and they had a
‘‘qualitative training” with the samples of reference. Therefore, all
of the assessors were considered to have the same perception for
each attribute. In this work, the better performance for texture
attributes of QDA panel could be attributed to the training with
scale endpoints. Although the three methods studied show efficient
samples discrimination and consensus among assessors, the QDA
training facilitated the understanding of the attributes definitions.
A comparison of the applicability of the sensory methods (num-
ber of assessors, number of samples and time required) could be
observed in Table 9. The data, however, do not consider the addi-
tional difficulty in the definition and preparation of the products
used in the stages of pre-selection and standards for training
(QDA and RDA). The FCP was the fastest method (seven sessions),
since some stages conducted in the QDA and the RDA were elimi-
nated from the FCP (pre-selection, consensus for attributes, train-
ing, and selection), implying an economy of samples in relation
to the QDA. Due to the procedure of evaluation (three repetitions),
even with fewer assessors, the FCP required a larger amount of
samples when compared with the RDA.
The initial procedures for the QDA and RDA were similar. In
these two methods, the assessors underwent a pre-selection test
and qualitative training sessions to improve their perception and
to consensually define the attributes; this required the analyst to
have experience in conducting these initial procedures. In RDA,
due to the facility of application technique in the final evaluation
of the samples, a reduction in the number of sessions and, conse-
quently, the number of samples required compared with the
QDA, was observed. However, it should be considered that since
evaluation using RDA method was made only once for each sam-
ple, it did not allow to check repeatability of panel performance.
All results were analysed using GPA; however, ANOVA can also
be used for the QDA and the Test of Friedman for the RDA. This rep-
resents an advantage in relation to the FCP in view of the small
availability GPA programmes.
The requirement, in quantitative terms, of assessors, sessions,
and samples will no doubt vary in relation to specific situations
(e.g., the requirement for assessor retraining or new assessor selec-
tion in QDA).
5. Conclusions
The method of Ranking Descriptive Analysis (RDA), using the
pre-selection of assessors, attributes development and definition
619
FCP QDA RDA
– Four sessions Four sessions
Two sessions Two sessions Two sessions
56 samples 48 samples 84 samples
One individual session Four sessions Four sessions
Two sessions – One session
84 samples 84 samples
– Seven sessions –
– Four sessions –
144 samples
Four sessions Four sessions One session
168 samples 144 samples 84 samples
7 26 12
14 12 21
308 336 252
GPA GPA e ANOVA GPA e Friedman
(qualitative aspect) and final analysis using the ranking procedure
for each attribute, allowed the discrimination of the samples with
efficiency similar to that displayed by the descriptive methods of
the QDA and FCP.
The facility of the procedure for ranking samples (ordinal scale),
in comparison with the use of interval scales used in the traditional
descriptive techniques, showed that the RDA panel presented
greater consensus. However, for some attributes, the training of
the QDA panel facilitated the agreement of the definitions. A more
intense qualitative training for RDA would allow more consistent
results, primarily for complex attributes of texture.
Despite the larger number of assessors required, RDA has the
advantage of minor costs associated with the requirement of fewer
sessions than QDA and a smaller amount of product than required
by other sensory techniques.
References
Barylko-Pikielna, N., Matuszewska, I., Jeruszka, M., Kozlowska, K., Brzozowska, A., &
Roszkowski, W. (2004). Discriminability and appropriateness of category
scaling versus ranking methods to study sensory preferences in elderly. Food
Quality and Preference, 15, 167–175.
Dairou, V., & Sieffermann, J.-M. (2002). A comparison of 14 jams characterized by
conventional profile and a quick original method, the flash profile. Journal of
Food Science, 67, 826–834.
Delarue, J., & Sieffermann, J.-M. (2004). Sensory mapping using flash profile.
Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the
flavour of fruit dairy products. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 383–392.
Dijksterhuis, G. B., & Gower, J. C. (1991). The interpretation of generalized
procrustes analysis and allied methods. Food Quality and Preference, 3, 67–87.
Gower, J. C. (1975). Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika, 40, 33–51.
Hein, K. A., Jaeger, S. R., Carr, T. B., & Delahunty, C. M. (2008). Comparison of five
common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference, 19,
651–661.
Iop, S. C. F., Beleia, A. P., & Silva, R. S. F. (1999). Formulation and evaluation of dry
dessert mix containing sweetener combinations using mixture response
methodology. Food Chemistry, 66, 167–171.
Kilcast, D., & Clegg, S. (2002). Sensory perception of creaminess and its relationship
with food structure. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 609–623.
Kim, K., & O’Mahony, M. A. (1998). New approach to category scales of intensity:
Traditional vs. rank-rating. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 241–249.
Lee, H. S., Hout, D., & O’Mahony, M. (2007). Sensory difference tests for margarine: A
comparison of R-indices derived from ranking and A–Not A methods
considering response bias and cognitive strategies. Food Quality and
Preference, 18, 675–680.
Lee, H. S., & O’Mahony, M. (2005). Sensory evaluation and marketing: Measurement
of a consumer concept. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 227–235.
Lethuaut, L., Brossard, C., Meynier, A., Rousseau, F., Llamas, G., Bousseau, B., et al.
(2005). Sweetness and aroma perceptions in dairy desserts varying in sucrose
and aroma levels and in textural agent. International Dairy Journal, 15, 485–493.
Liem, D. G., Mars, M., & Graaf, C. (2004). Consistency of sensory testing with 4- and
5-year-old children. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 541–548.
McEwan, J. A. (1999). Comparison of sensory panels: A ring trial. Food Quality and
Preference, 42, 161–171.
Meilgaard, M. C., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1999). Sensory evaluation techniques.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
620 V.B. Richter et al. / Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010) 611–620
Moskowitz, H. R. (1983). Product testing and sensory evaluation of foods – Marketing
and R&D approaches. Westport: Food and Nutrition Press Inc.
Murray, J. M., Delahunty, C. M., & Baxter, I. A. (2001). Descriptive sensory analysis:
Past, present and future. Food Research International, 34, 461–471.
Newell, G. J., & MacFarlane, J. D. (1987). Expanded tables for multiple comparison
procedures in the analysis of ranked data. Journal of Food Science, 52, 1721–1725.
Oliveira, A. P. V., & Benassi, M. T. (2010). Avaliação sensorial de pudins de chocolate
com açúcar e dietéticos por Perfil Livre. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 34, 146–154.
Oliveira, A. P. V., Frasson, K., Almeida, T. C. A., & Benassi, M. T. (2004). Aceitação de
sobremesas lácteas dietéticas e formuladas com açúcar: teste afetivo e mapa de
preferência interno. Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos, 24, 627–633.
OP & P Product Research (1998). Senstools Versão 2.3. Utrecht: OP & P Product
Research.
Penna, E. W. (1980). Evaluacion sensorial: una metodologia actual para tecnología de
alimentos. Santiago: Universidade do Chile.
Rodrigue, N., Guillet, M., Fortin, J., & Martin, J. F. (2000). Comparing information
obtained from ranking and descriptive tests of four sweet corn products. Food
Quality and Preference, 11, 47–54.
STATSOFT STATISTICA for Windows – Program manual, 1995. Tulsa: Statsoft, Inc.
Stone, H., & Sidel, J. L. (1998). Quantitative descriptive analysis: Developments,
applications, and the future. Food Technology, 52, 48–52.
Villanueva, N. D. M., Petenate, A. J., & Da Silva, Maria 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.
Weenen, H., Jellema, R. H., & Wijk, R. A. (2005). Sensory sub-attributes of creamy
mouthfeel in commercial mayonnaises, custard desserts and sauces. Food
Quality and Preference, 16, 163–170.
Wijk, R. A., Gemert, L. J., Terpstra, M. E. J., & Wilkinson, C. L. (2003). Texture of semi-
solids, sensory and instrumental measurements on vanilla custard desserts.
Food Quality and Preference, 14, 305–317.
Wijk, R. A., Prinz, J. F., & Janssen, A. M. (2006). Explaining perceived oral texture of
starch-based custard desserts from standard and novel instrumental tests. Food
Hydrocolloids, 20, 24–34.
Williams, A. A., & Langron, S. P. (1984). The use of free-choice profiling for the
evaluation of commercials ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
35, 558–568.