Sensory product characterization by consumers using check‐all‐that‐apply questions: Investigations linked to term development using kiwifruit as a case study

Abstract

Sensory product characterization is a cornerstone activity in sensory science, and increasingly it is performed by consumers. Check‐all‐that‐apply (CATA) questions are popular for this purpose, and solid guidelines for many aspects of their implementation exist. However, they do not extend to term development. The present research is situated in this gap, and across 11 consumer studies (n = 1,455) the influence of term variations (e.g., “acid” or “acidic”) and CATA list composition was explored. The description of samples and their discrimination was affected by both factors, but particularly the former. The need for terms to be readily understood and related to the vocabulary consumers commonly used for describing the test products was supported. There was some evidence supporting consumers' ability to use specific sensory descriptors, but also instances showing the opposite. Composite terms (e.g., “tangy/sour”) showed potential for providing contextualizing information regarding the focal sensory characteristic, but they were not always beneficial. CATA terms of particular relevance for consumers' sensory perception of kiwifruit were identified, to the benefit of new cultivar development efforts. Practical applications Check‐all‐that‐apply (CATA) questions have become popular for sensory product characterization by consumers. However, better guidance on how to develop CATA terms is needed. This research, using kiwifruit as a case study, demonstrates that the wording of terms matters greatly for consumers' ability to characterize and discriminate between samples. The general guideline to practitioners is to include consumer‐friendly terms that intuitively relate to the focal product category. Terms used by trained assessors may not be applicable to consumers due to specificity, low applicability or apparent incongruence with the product category. Sample characterization and differentiation can also depend on the collective set of terms used in a CATA question.

Differences in citation proportions in CATA questions can be interpreted as differences perceived intensity of sensory attributes

“…According to consumer responses to CATA questions are less discriminative than descriptive analysis DA with trained assessors when dealing with specific flavor characteristics (e.g., "floral"), complex texture attributes (e.g., "smooth"), or attributes with non-consensual meaning for consumers (e.g., "typical Sauvignon blanc"). As previously reported by Jaeger et al (2019), researchers are advised to include consumer-friendly terms in CATA questions and refrain from using technical or not well-understood terms.…”

Effect of Substitution of Rice Flour with Quinoa Flour on the Chemical-Physical, Nutritional, Volatile and Sensory Parameters of Gluten-Free Ladyfinger Biscuits

“…One of the main difficulties in applying this test is the actual development of the CATA terms. The CATA terms can have different meanings: they can have a hedonic connotation, or be related to usage occasions or emotions [34,35]. The terms used in this CATA test were selected following both an analysis of the literature on biscuits, quinoa, and GF products [36][37][38][39], and by performing preliminary tests in the laboratory.…”

Sensory characteristics of structured guava (Psidium guajava): comparison of optimized descriptive profile, cata and sensory acceptance methods

“…The test can be performed by untrained people and it is not demanding for consumers, with a minimum recommendation of N = 60 to 80 consumers. (Meyners et al, 2014;Vidal et al, 2015;Avery & Joseph, 2019;Jaeger et al, 2019). Some recent studies have used the CATA method to characterize products such as hot and cold foods and beverages (Pramudya & Seo, 2018), solid products requiring oral processing prior to swallowing (Vidal et al, 2019) and vegetable and berry beverages, where the authors demonstrated the association between consumer's emotions and taste (Waehrens et al, 2018).…”