Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists

The Science of Beer

ISSN: 0361-0470 (Print) 1943-7854 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujbc20

Validating the Sensitivity of the Beer Tetrad Test as


Compared with the Beer Triangle Test (A Follow-Up
Study): An American Society of Brewing Chemists
Technical Committee Report

D. Bissmeyer & ASBC Technical Committee

To cite this article: D. Bissmeyer & ASBC Technical Committee (2019) Validating the Sensitivity of
the Beer Tetrad Test as Compared with the Beer Triangle Test (A Follow-Up Study): An American
Society of Brewing Chemists Technical Committee Report, Journal of the American Society of
Brewing Chemists, 77:3, 222-223, DOI: 10.1080/03610470.2019.1619323

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03610470.2019.1619323

Published online: 21 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 18

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujbc20
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF BREWING CHEMISTS
2019, VOL. 77, NO. 3, 222–223
https://doi.org/10.1080/03610470.2019.1619323

REPORT

Validating the Sensitivity of the Beer Tetrad Test as Compared with the Beer
Triangle Test (A Follow-Up Study): An American Society of Brewing Chemists
Technical Committee Report
D. Bissmeyer and ASBC Technical Committee

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Previous testing by the sensory subcommittee confirmed that the Tetrad Test was more sensitive Beer; discrimination tests;
than the Triangle Test on beer samples with higher Effect Sizes. The subcommittee also wanted to sensory; Tetrad Test;
confirm that the Tetrad Test was equally effective for samples with lower Effect Sizes; therefore, a Triangle Test
new study was designed to validate the sensitivity of the Tetrad Test for smaller d’ values. The
results of the second study show that for samples with smaller d’ values, the Tetrad Test resulted
in a 15% reduction in d’ compared with the Triangle Test. This is less than the theoretical 1/3
reduction, indicating that the Tetrad Test is more sensitive. The Tetrad Test also resulted in a
higher proportion of correct responses, though the difference was not significant at the 95% confi-
dence interval. The subcommittee recommended that the Tetrad Test method be included in the
ASBC Methods of Analysis.

Introduction room (4  C). Only the Wolf Group’s trained and validated
panel participated in the testing.
Difference test methods are widely used in the food and
beverage industry to determine if a sensory difference
between samples can be detected by a panel or by consum- Production samples and panelists
ers. An important consideration of these tests is their statis-
tical power or the capacity of the test to reliably detect a Cold Stored New Belgium Fat Tire lot 1 (4  C)
difference between products. The Tetrad Test is a relatively Cold Stored New Belgium Fat Tire lot 2 (4  C)
new type of discrimination testing that is theoretically more Cold Stored Goose Island IPA lot 1 (4  C)
powerful than the Triangle Test and has the added advan- Cold Stored Goose Island IPA lot 2 (4  C)
Each test had a minimum of 18 panelists and 2 repeti-
tage of using about one-third the number of panelists.
This was the second year of the subcommittee’s existence. tions for a total of 36 data points.
The subcommittee was formed based on the recommenda-
tion of the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) Results and discussion
Sensory Subcommittee to determine if the Tetrad Test is as
sensitive as the Triangle Test for samples with smaller d’ The proportions of panelists who correctly identified the odd
values. For the Tetrad Test, panelists are simultaneously pre- sample in the Tetrad and Triangle Tests for each sample are
sented with a set of four coded samples, comprised of two provided in Table 1. For the New Belgium Fat Tire Sample,
sets of identical samples. They are instructed to group the the proportion of correct answers for both the Triangle and
four samples into two pairs based on the level of similarity Tetrad was 33%, which is the same as the guessing probabil-
between samples and if they cannot determine a difference, ity. This portion of the test was therefore inconclusive. For
they must guess.[1] the Goose Island IPA sample, the Tetrad resulted in 53% cor-
rect responses compared with 47% for the Triangle. This dif-
ference is not significant at the 95% confidence interval.
Effect Size (d0 ) is an estimate of the amount of perceived
Procedure
difference between the samples and can be thought of as a
Two production lots of Goose Island IPA and New signal-to-noise ratio. Theoretically, switching from Triangle
Belgium’s Fat Tire were received at the Wolf Group. to Tetrad should result in a decrease in Effect Size of 1/3
Samples were immediately coded and refrigerated and because of the increase in noise from the addition of a sam-
moved to the Wolf Group’s controlled refrigerated storage ple; therefore, to be considered more powerful, the reduction

CONTACT D. Bissmeyer asbc@scisoc.org


Subcommittee Members: D. Bissmeyer, Chair; C. Lakenburges, Co-chair; T. Teras, Co-chair; Wolf Group’s Trained Panel; and L. Barr (ex officio).
ß 2019 American Society of Brewing Chemists, Inc.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF BREWING CHEMISTS 223

Table 1. Comparison of proportion correct for Tetrad and Triangle methods. Test for samples with larger d’ values. This study was
Tetrad Triangle designed to validate the sensitivity of the Tetrad Test for
New Belgium Fat Tire 33% 33% smaller d’ values. For samples with smaller d’ values, the
Goose Island IPA 53% 47%
Tetrad resulted in a 15% reduction in d’ compared with the
Triangle Test. This is less than the theoretical 33.3% reduc-
Table 2. Summary of d0 results for Goose Island IPA. tion, indicating that the Tetrad Test is more sensitive. The
% d0 reduction Tetrad Test also resulted in a higher proportion of correct
Test Standard from Triangle % d0 reduction
Method d0 deviation of d0 to Tetrad < 33.3%? responses, though the difference was not significant at the
Goose Island IPA Triangle 1.32 0.455 15% Yes 95% confidence interval.
Tetrad 1.11 0.289

Recommendations
in Effect Size from Triangle to Tetrad must be <1/3. The 1. The subcommittee recommends that the Tetrad Test
results for d0 are shown in Table 2. method be included in the Methods of Analysis.
The reduction in d0 from Triangle to Tetrad was 15% 2. Samples with strong or lingering flavors may have too
for the Goose Island IPA test. This is less than the theoret- much carryover for the Tetrad Test to be effective. This
ical 1/3 (33.3%) reduction, indicating that the Tetrad should was not a part of the current study but should be a con-
be more powerful. In addition, the standard deviation of d0 sideration in test selection.
was lower for the Tetrad, indicating that the Tetrad is
more precise.
Hummer[2] laid out the business risk associated with Note
Effect Size: Too small to be noticed (d0 < 0.61), threshold
(0.88  d0  1.10), very small (1.29  d0  1.47), and The ASBC Methods of Analysis is available online only
noticeable (d0 > 1.64). Previous testing was conducted on (http://methods.asbcnet.org/), with free access included as
samples with larger d’ values. This follow-up study part of the personal ASBC membership package or access
was designed to validate the sensitivity of the Tetrad with can be purchased by company subscription.
samples that were similar. Because the d’ of the study was in
the “threshold” and “very small” range, this objective Literature cited
was achieved.
[1] Ennis, J. M. Guiding the Switch from Triangle to Tetrad
Testing. J. Sens. Stud. 2012, 27, 223–231. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-
Conclusions 459X.2012.00386.x.
[2] Hummer, S. Business Risk Assessment From the Application of
The Tetrad Test is a suitable replacement for the Triangle Discrimination Testing. In SSP Sensometrics Joint Workshop:
Test. Previous testing performed by this committee indicated Discrimination Testing in Practice, 2016, Society of Sensory
that the Tetrad Test was more sensitive than the Triangle Professionals Conference, October 26–28, Atlanta, GA, 2016.

You might also like