TOPIC 4:

TECHNIQUES AND METHODS

FOR SENSORY EVALUATION
EGF 4013 Sensory Evaluation of Food
Diploma in Food Engineering Technology
KKTM Lenggong
TOPIC OUTLINE
4.1 Methods of Difference Test
4.2 Descriptive Analysis Technique
4.3 Methods of Affective Tests
LEARNING OUTCOMES
After completing the topic, you should be able to: LO 3

Describe methods of
LO 2 affective tests.
Describe the methods
of descriptive
analysis.
LO 1
Identify the methods
of difference test.
 SENSORY TEST
Difference Affective
(discriminative) Descriptive

Based on
Triangle Test
Flavour Profile® Acceptance Preference
discernible Method (“rating”) (“choice”) Based on
difference i.e. individual
How do the acceptability or
Texture Profile®
Duo-Trio Test Hedonic Rating preference i.e.
products Method
differ? How much do
Quantitative you like the
Paired
Comparison Test
Descriptive product?
Analysis® Quantitative
description of
Multiple product
Comparison Test
 To determine To determine the To measure of
whether a nature and preference or
difference exists intensity of the acceptance.
between samples. differences. The personal
DIFFERENCE TEST

DESCRIPTIVE TEST

AFFECTIVE TEST
The panelist does feeling of a
not allow his panelist toward
personal likes the product
and dislikes directs his
influencing his response.
response.
4.1
METHODS OF
DIFFERENCE TESTS
DIFFERENCE TESTS
➢To determine a difference between samples, include:
✓triangle test
✓simple paired comparisons test
✓duo-trio test
✓multiple comparisons test
✓Ranking test
✓Scoring test
✓ratio-scaling
✓Scheffé paired comparisons test
APPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS
• This method is particularly useful for:

– To determine whether product differences result from a change in

ingredients, processing, packaging, or storage

– To determine whether an overall difference exists where no specific

attribute(s) can be identified as having been affected

– To select and monitor panelists for ability to discriminate given

differences
METHODS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS:
1. PAIRED
COMPARISON TEST
Two samples are presented, and
the subject’s task is to indicate,
by circling or by some similar
means, the one product that has
more of a designated
characteristic such as sweetness,
tenderness, or shininess
METHODS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS:
1. PAIRED COMPARISON TEST

Table 4.1: Number of correct decisions for the non-directional

paired test according to serving order
METHODS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS:
2. TRIANGLE TEST
The panellist is served three
samples and is required to
indicate which one is most
different.
METHODS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS:
3. DUO-TRIO TEST
Subject is presented with
three samples; the first is
identified as the reference
(or control) and the other
two are coded.

The subject’s task is to

indicate which product is
most similar to the
reference.
METHODS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS:
4. MULTIPLE COMPARISON TEST
• A known reference or standard sample is labeled R and presented to the
panelist with several coded samples.
• The panelist is asked to compare each coded sample with the reference
sample on the basis of some named characteristics.
• The multiple comparison method may be used to examine effects of replacing
or changing an ingredient, of packaging material, of changing a process, or of
storage.
• This test can be used very efficiently to evaluate four or five samples at a
time. Small differences between the sample and the control can be detected.
It also gives information about the direction and magnitude of the difference.
METHODS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS:
4. MULTIPLE COMPARISON TEST

Figure 4.7: Sample of multiple comparison test questionnaire

METHODS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS:
5. RANKING TEST
• The panellist receives three or more coded samples and is asked to rank them
for the intensity of some specific characteristics.
• The ranking method is rapid and allows the testing of several samples at once.
It is generally used to screen one or two of the best samples from a group of
samples rather than to test all samples thoroughly. No indication of the size of
the differences between samples is obtained.
• Because samples are evaluated only in relation to each other, results from one
set of ranks cannot be compared with the results from another set of ranks
unless both contain only the same samples.
METHODS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS:
5. RANKING TEST

Figure 4.8: Ranking test questionnaire Figure 4.9: Master sheet for Ranking Test
METHODS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS:
6. SCORING TEST
• Coded samples are evaluated for the intensity of some specified
characteristics. The panellist records his judgement on a graduated scale.
• The descriptive terms on the scale must be carefully selected and the panellist
trained so that they agree on the meaning of the terms. Objective terms such
as “very hard”, rather than preference terms such as “much too hard”, must
be used.
• The panellist is not typical consumers and their likes and dislikes are not
considered. To use scoring effectively, all the panellist must be evaluating the
same characteristics.
METHODS OF DIFFERENCE TESTS:
6. SCORING TEST

Figure 4.10: Scoring test questionnaire

4.2
DESRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
TECHNIQUE
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
➢Descriptive analysis is the most sophisticated of the methodologies available to
the sensory professional (when compared with discrimination and acceptance
methods).
➢Descriptive analysis:
➢Provide complete quantitative sensory descriptions of an array of products
➢Provide the basis for mapping product similarities and difference
➢Provide a basis for determining those sensory attributes that are important to
acceptance.
➢The results enable one to relate specific ingredient or process variables to
specific changes in some (or all) of the sensory attributes of a product.
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
TEST METHODS

Figure 4.11: Classification of descriptive analysis methods.

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
TEST METHODS
Flavour
Profile®

DESCRIPTIVE
ANALYSIS
TECHNIQUE

Quantitative
Descriptive Texture
Analysis® Profile®
(QDA)
1. FLAVOUR PROFILE®
➢The Flavour Profile® method (Cairncross and Sjöstrom, 1950; Sjöstrom and Cairncross, 1954;
Caul, 1957) is the only formal qualitative descriptive procedure and is probably the most well-
known of sensory test methods.
➢Utilizes a panel of four to six highly trained panels who first examine and then discuss the
product in an open session.
➢Subjects are selected for training based on a series of screening tests, including sensory acuity,
interest, attitude, and availability.
➢ Sensory acuity : The capacity that we have to be acutely aware through our senses (seeing,
hearing, feeling, touching)
➢Once agreement is reached on the description of the product, the panel leader summarizes
the results in report form.
➢This consensus leads to data that acts as a mean value (although it is not an average of the
panelists scores, it is a single score agreed upon by all panel members).
1. FLAVOUR PROFILE®
➢For this method the key individual is the panel leader, who coordinates the testing
and reports results.
➢This individual assumes a leadership role, directing the conversation and providing a
consensus conclusion based on the results.
➢This role as panel leader can have significant consequences without some
independent controls.
➢Subjects could be led to a conclusion without being aware that this had occurred.
➢In addition, the six subjects take turns serving as the panel leader.
➢Nonetheless, as a sensory test, the method had considerable appeal because results could
be obtained rapidly. The subjects meet, as a group, for about an hour to evaluate a
product, reach a consensus about its sensory properties, and provide the requestor with a
result.
Flavour profile for chocolate
2. TEXTURE PROFILE®
➢Texture Profile® method developed at the General Foods Research Center
(Brandt et al., 1963;Szczesniak, 1963; Szczesniak et al., 1963).
➢Procedure similar to flavour profile, but a wider range of scaling techniques
may be used
➢Results may be by consensus method or statistical analysis
2. TEXTURE PROFILE

Table 4.2: Relationship between textual parameters and popular nomenclature

3. QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS®
➢The Tragon Corp developed the Tragon QDA® method of descriptive analysis (Stone
et al., 1974; Stone and Sidel, 1992).
➢This method relies heavily on statistical analysis to determine the appropriate terms,
procedures, and panellists to be used for the analysis of a specific product.
➢Training of QDA requires use of product and ingredients references, as with other
descriptive methods, to stimulate the generation of terminology.
➢The panel leader acts as a facilitator, rather than as an instructor, and refrains from
influencing the group.
➢Attention is given to development of consistent terminology, but panellist are free to
develop their own approach to scoring, using the 15 cm (6 in.) line scale that the
methods provides.
3. QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS®
Why QDA?
➢Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA®) is one of main descriptive analysis
techniques in sensory evaluation.
➢Proposed and developed by Tragon Corporation under partial collaboration with the
Department of Food Science at the University of California, Davis.
➢Initial intentions (purpose) for this method were to deal with poor statistical
treatment on data obtained by Flavor Profile and related descriptive methods2.
➢In QDA, multiple product evaluations are suggested to capitalize on panelists’ skill in
making relative judgments with a high degree of precision. Humans are good at
judging relative sensory differences but poor at evaluating absolute differences.
3. QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS®
Who are the panellists?
➢Panellists are selected from a large pool of candidates according to their
ability to discriminate differences in sensory properties among samples of the
specific product types for which they are to be trained.
➢Subjects are screened for sensitivity to product differences. Standards for
subject qualification are arbitrary (random) and may vary depending on the
project.
➢A panel of ten to twelve is recommended in QDA®.
3. QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS®
How QDA is conducted?
➢During training, test products are served as illustrative stimuli for the consensus (agreement)
language development.
➢A panel leader works as a communication facilitator without involvement and interference
with panel discussions.
➢References can be used for generating sensory terminologies, especially when panelists are
confused and disagree with each other on some sensory attributes during training sessions.
➢Quantitative, not qualitative, assessments are made. Subjective descriptions such as "like",
"dislike", good", or "bad" are irrelevant.
➢In descriptive profiling, panel uses objective terminology to generate and define the sensory
attributes which best describe the products.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JtjeVpNeWc&t=317s
3. QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS®
How QDA is conducted?
➢ After panel training and calibration, the products are rated numerically against the attribute list
and the data is analysed statistically.
➢ Line scales are employed for panel training and data collection in QDA.
➢ Line scale of 6-inch in length with sensory intensities word anchors located 0.5 inch from each end.
➢ Scale direction goes from left to right with increasing intensities, e.g., weak to strong, little to much.
➢ During data collection, panelists measure sensory intensities independently at individual booth without
reference served as intensities standards.
➢ Panelists are allowed to use different parts of the scale to determine the sensory intensities by themselves.
➢ Subjects’ reliability is evaluated by their repeated measurements on product attributes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvBbo8-U0t0
3. QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
➢The results of QDA test are
statistically analysed.
➢The report generally contains a
graphic representation of the data in
the form of a spider web with a
branch from a central point for each
attribute.
3. QUANTITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
• These features of the QDA methodology are list here;
– Responsive to all the sensory properties of a product
– Able to evaluate multiple products
– Subjects qualified before participation
– Use a limited number of subjects
– Use a consensus language development process free from leader influence
– Be quantitative and use a repeated trials design
– Have a useful data analysis system
APPLICATIONS OF DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
1. Monitor competition
➢It is especially important to know in what ways competitive products differ;
such information can be used to anticipate changes and to identify product
weaknesses.
➢The descriptive information provides a primary basis and more precise
direction for any proposed changes. In addition, one can map the
relationships of preferences with specific attributes (Figure 4.12) to gain more
insight to how products are “perceived” by the consumers relative to their
sensory differences.
 Figure 4.12: A map of sensory and preference differences. The two
factors accounted for 69.91% of the differences that were measured.
APPLICATIONS OF DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
2. Storage testing
➢In a storage test in which product changes occur over time, descriptive
analysis at the start of the test provides a basis on which changes can be
compared.
➢A product placed in some type of controlled environment, for example, a
freezer, does not prevent change, and providing fresh product for comparison
with the stored product.
APPLICATIONS OF DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
3. Product development
➢Descriptive analysis is used to describe a target product, determine whether
experimental formulations match that target, and provide precise sensory
information about the finished product.

4. Quality control
➢Descriptive analysis could be used to identify the sensory limits for a product
as well as to track long-term trends.
APPLICATIONS OF DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
5. Physical/chemical-sensory relationships
➢Descriptive analysis is especially helpful in identifying specific product
differences that can be related to differences in various instrument and
chemical measures. Once identified, these differences can be explored in more
detail, again using the descriptive model.
4.3
METHODS OF
AFFECTIVE TEST
AFFECTIVE TESTS
PREFERENCE
➢Preference is that expression of appeal of one product versus another
➢Preference can be measured directly by comparison of two or more products
with each other, that is, which one of two, or more products, is preferred.
ACCEPTANCE
➢By acceptance testing we mean measuring liking or preference for a product.
➢Indirect measurement of preference is achieved by determining which
product is scored significantly higher (more liked) than another product in a
multiproduct test, or which product is scored higher than another by
significantly more people.
METHODS OF AFFECTIVE TESTS
→ To measure
Paired Preference Test
PREFERENCE
METHODS “choice”
OF
AFFECTIVE
TESTS
→ To measure
Hedonic Test
ACCEPTANCE
“rating”
METHODS OF AFFECTIVE TESTS
NOTE:
It is important to note that a preference test should be performed
separately and after a difference test.
1. PAIRED PREFERENCE TEST
➢The method requires the subject to indicate which one of two coded products
is preferred.
➢A frequently used option allows the inclusion of a “no preference” as a third
choice, while another option allows inclusion of a fourth choice, “dislike both
equally.”
➢The test is relatively easy to organize and to implement. The only two orders
of presentation are A–B and B–A, and subjects usually evaluate only one pair
of products in a test with no replication.
1. PAIRED PREFERENCE TEST

Figure 4.14: Example of the scorecard for the paired-preference test,

showing Option A, which limits the subjects to two choices; Option B,
which includes a no-preference choice for the subject; and Option C,
which includes two additional choices.
2. HEDONIC TEST
• The hedonic scale may be used to determine
degree of acceptability of one or more
products.
• This scale is a category-type scale with an odd
number (five to nine) categories ranging from
“dislike extremely” to “like extremely.”
• A neutral midpoint (neither like nor dislike) is
included. Consumers rate the product on the
scale based on their responses.
2. HEDONIC TEST

Figure 4.15: An example of the nine-point hedonic scale. The subject’s task is to circle
the term that best represents their attitude about the product. Boxes adjacent to the
terms could also be used. The responses are converted to numerical values for
computational purposes: like extremely, 9; dislike extremely, 1.
2. HEDONIC TEST
SUMMARY
We have learnt that…
• The discrimination test is a powerful sensory evaluation method in terms of its sensitivity and
providing reliable and valid results. The test method has evolved in response to a greater
appreciation for the perceptual processes involved in the discrimination task.
• It is necessary that subjects for a descriptive test demonstrate their ability to perceive
differences at better than chance among the products that they will be testing; that for
inexperienced individuals, this skill takes as many as twenty to thirty trials to demonstrate; and
that about 30% of those who volunteer will fail to meet the chance probability requirement.
• Descriptive methods were designed to analyse products with a high degree of reliability and
precision.
• In the product evaluation process, acceptance testing usually, but not always, follows
discrimination and descriptive tests, which have reduced the number of product alternatives
to some limited subset, and precedes larger-scale testing done outside of research and
development by others, such as marketing research.