Labeled magnitude scales for oral sensations of wetness, dryness, pleasantness and unpleasantness

Comparative performance of the nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal preference maps

“…Overall, even though a greater discrimination of LAM over the nine-point hedonic scale was reported by Schutz and Cardello (2001) for highly liked samples, in these series of experiments, the authors concluded that the two scales showed equal reliability, sensitivity and ease of use. Further experiments confirmed better performance of the LAM scale over the nine-point scale to discriminate highly liked samples (Greene, Bratka, Drake, & Sanders, 2006) and good degree of agreement with others labeled magnitude scales developed by different researchers (Guest, Essick, Patel, Prajapati, & McGlone, 2007).…”

Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory

“…7). A third hedonic category-ratio scale is the 'Oral Pleasantness and Unpleasantness Scale' (OPUS) (Guest, Essick, Patel, Prajapati, & McGlone, 2007). These authors' rationale for developing the OPUS was that some of the adjectives used to describe perceived intensity on the gLMS are inappropriate for pleasantness/unpleasantness ratings, and that spacing among descriptors might be different for specific sensations, such as oral pleasantness, wetness, roughness, etc.…”

“…The remaining four descriptors of the gLMS, which have no direct counterparts on the other three scales, are shown on the right. The numerical values for the semantic labels can be found in the original papers for each scaling method (the LHS:Lim et al, 2009; the LAM:Schutz & Cardello, 2001; the OPUS:Guest et al, 2007; the gLMS: Green et al, 1993).…”

Direct and indirect hedonic scaling methods: A comparison of the labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale and best–worst scaling

“…During applications of this scale, it was shown that consumers can use this scale to rate the affective attributes of stimuli with equal or better sensitivity, greater reliability and equivalent ease of use than the 9-point hedonic scale (Schutz & Cardello, 2001). The LAM scale and its derivations are now being used in several laboratories as an efficient method for scaling food likes and dislikes (Cardello, Lawless, & Schutz, 2008;Chung & Vickers, 2007a, 2007bForde & Delahunty, 2004;Greene, Bratka, Drake, & Sanders, 2006;Guest, Essick, Patel, Prajapati, & McGlone, 2007;Keskitalo et al, 2007).…”