Comparative Sensitivity of Pair and Triad Flavor Intensity Difference Tests

Hopkins, J. W.; Gridgeman, N. T.

doi:10.2307/3001480

Cited by 51 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could then reduce the test to a paired comparison because logically the judge would be able to indicate the odd sample after only one tasting. The literature indicates several studies where the paired comparison was found to be more discriminating than the triangle test (Buchanan et al, 1987;Byer and Abrams, 1953;Filipello, 1956;Gridgeman, 1955;Hopkins and Gridgeman, 1955). However, the first two stimuli in the triangle test do not constitute a paired comparison.…”

Section: Experiments IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

The Warm‐up Effect as a Means of Increasing the Discriminability of Sensory Difference Tests

O’Mahony

Thieme

Goldstein

1988

Journal of Food Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Experiments IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

The Warm‐up Effect as a Means of Increasing the Discriminability of Sensory Difference Tests

O’Mahony

Thieme

Goldstein

1988

Journal of Food Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The power of a sensory discrimination test is the capacity of that test to reliably detect differences between products. This capacity depends on the size of the difference between products, but nevertheless, some methodologies are more powerful than others even when the underlying measure of difference is the same (Byer and Abrams 1953; Hopkins and Gridgeman 1955; Frijters 1979; Ennis 1990, 1993; O'Mahony 1995; Rousseau et al . 1998; O'Mahony and Rousseau 2002; McClure and Lawless 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Power of Sensory Discrimination Methods Revisited

Ennis

Jesionka²

2011

Journal of Sensory Studies

107

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“The power of sensory discrimination methods” (PSDM) was published in this journal in 1993. PSDM clarified the need for power considerations in the interpretation of testing results while providing a series of sample size tables. Despite the fact that the data considered in PSDM were binomially distributed, a normal approximation was used that both overestimated power and underestimated sample sizes. Although exact power functions have been examined in the sensory literature, the unusual behavior of these functions has not been embraced; the fact that increasing sample size can decrease power has not yet been incorporated into stable sample size recommendations. In this paper, we provide sample size recommendations with the property that any larger sample sizes also have the desired level of power. These recommendations are given in the form of tables updating those found in PSDM. In addition, a relatively new discrimination testing method known as the tetrad test has grown in popularity recently and this test now needs to be examined from a power perspective. We show that the tetrad test is remarkably powerful for an unspecified test and in some cases only requires one third the sample size as that required by the triangle test. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS This paper contains three main practical applications. First, we provide sample size recommendations, including tables, based on the exact power function as determined by the binomial distribution. In particular, this paper is the first to provide exact sample size recommendations such that all larger sample sizes continue to have the desired level of power. Next, we use the exact power analysis to recommend that only the 2‐alternative forced choice (AFC); instead of, for example, the 3‐AFC or the specified tetrad test be used for forced choice testing in which an attribute of interest is specified to distinguish the samples. Finally, we provide a power analysis of the unspecified tetrad test for the first time in the sensory literature and show that in some cases, the tetrad test only requires one third the sample size as the triangle test. This last point could lead to both significant resource savings and improved confidence for researchers throughout sensory science.

show abstract

“…Research on the sensitivity of discrimination methods is important theoretically and in practical applications. Many authors discussed and compared the sensitivity of discrimination methods from different perspectives, (Hopkins and Gridgeman 1955;Ura 1960;David and Trivedi 1962;Bradley 1963;Frijters 1979Frijters , 1988O'Mahony and Odbert 1985;Ennis 1990Ennis , 1993Bi 1995;Rousseau er af. 1998;Huang andLawless 1998 andBi andEnnis 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Power of the “ A” ‐“ Not A” Method

Ennis

2001

Journal of Sensory Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The “ A” ‐ “ Not A” method is a rating method with two categories. It is often treated as a discrimination method. Unlike forced choice procedures, the Thurstonian model for this method involves a choice criterion. In statistical tests, it is treated as a comparison of two proportions. In this paper, the power for hypothesis tests involving the monadic and replicated monadic “ A” ‐ “ Not A” method is discussed. The power functions and the sample sizes needed for 80% power are given based on Thurstone's δ. Designs with equal and unequal allocations for A and A (Not A) samples are considered. The power of the method is also compared with that of four forced choice methods under the assumption that the perceptual variance is identical among methods. The comparison shows that, in general, the power for the five methods ranks from high to low: the 3‐AFC, 2‐AFC, “ A” ‐ “ Not A”, triangular and duo‐trio. The comparison also shows that, based on the same number of panelists and/or the same sample size for the A and A− samples for the methods, if the panelists are not too discrepant and the choice criterion in the “ A” ‐ “ Not A” method is not too strict or too lax, the power of the “ A” ‐ “ Not A” method is very close to that of the 2‐AFC method.

show abstract

Comparative Sensitivity of Pair and Triad Flavor Intensity Difference Tests

Cited by 51 publications

References 2 publications

The Warm‐up Effect as a Means of Increasing the Discriminability of Sensory Difference Tests

The Warm‐up Effect as a Means of Increasing the Discriminability of Sensory Difference Tests

The Power of Sensory Discrimination Methods Revisited

The Power of the “ A” ‐“ Not A” Method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About