Taking individual scaling differences into account by analyzing profile data with the Mixed Assessor Model
- ,
- Pascal Schlich,
- Ib Skovgaard
- Technical University of Denmark,
- National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment,
- University of Copenhagen
Research Output:
Journal Article or Conference Article in Journal
Journal article
Peer-reviewOpen access
Publication Information
Output type
Research Output:
Journal Article or Conference Article in Journal
Journal article
Peer-reviewOriginal language
EnglishPages from-to (Number of pages)
Pages 156-166Journal (Volume, Issue Number)
Food Quality and Preference (Volume 39)Publication milestones
- Published - 2015
Publication status
Published - 2015
ISSN
0950-3293Publication IDs
- Scopus: 84907358211
- ORCID: /0000-0002-1432-7229/work/40611447
Abstract
Scale range differences between individual assessors will often constitute a non-trivial part of the assessor-by-product interaction in sensory profile data (Brockhoff, 2003, 1998; Brockhoff and Skovgaard, 1994). We suggest a new mixed model ANOVA analysis approach, the Mixed Assessor Model (MAM) that properly takes this into account by a simple inclusion of the product averages as a covariate in the modeling and allowing the covariate regression coefficients to depend on the assessor. This gives a more powerful analysis by removing the scaling difference from the error term and proper confidence limits are deduced that include scaling difference in the error term to the proper extent. A meta study of 8619 sensory attributes from 369 sensory profile data sets from SensoBase (www.sensobase.fr) is conducted. In 45.3% of all attributes scaling heterogeneity is present (P-value <0.05). For the 33.9% of the attributes having a product difference P-value in an intermediate range by the traditional approach, the new approach resulted in a clearly more significant result for 42.3% of these cases. Overall, the new approach claimed significant product difference (P-value <0.05) for 66.1% of the attributes compared to the 60.3% of traditional approach. Still, the new, and non-symmetrical, confidence limits are more often wider than narrower compared to the classical ones: in 72.6% of all cases.
Publication metrics
PlumX, opens in new tab
Captures
46
Citations
26
