A cost/benefit analysis of consumer CATA and trained descriptive analysis
Two panels evaluated 6 whole grain breads in duplicate. The consumer panel (n=93), drawn from an active database, used 32 CATA sensory and emotion terms to describe samples, and gave hedonic responses. The FCM® trained descriptive panel (n=12), drawn from a pool of trained assessors, used a common lexicon of 57 defined sensory attributes. Multivariate sensory spaces for CATA and DA results were obtained. RV coefficients indicate that each panel was repeatable. The RV coefficient indicated greater dissimilarity in the products than results from MFA, which suggested reasonable agreement in profiles.
Both panels were supervised by an experienced sensory team. Tests were conducted in Compusense at-hand. Consumer screening, recruitment, and self-scheduling were completed within 1 day, but we allowed 7 days lead time to ensure consumer availability. Data collection ran over 2 days. The DA panel was set up in 2 days, and required 1 day for execution. The DA panel was faster and cheaper, costing about 80% less than the consumer panel, made possible by prior training in this product category and efficient training using FCM®.
The consumer test gave hedonic data and ideal profiles, which provide important insights. If hedonic and consumer ideals are important, then a consumer study will be required, and CATA could be added to that ballot at little additional cost. Each method delivered relevant information that was replicable within method, but the two methods provided quite different information regarding the products.
Findlay, C. J., & Castura, J. C. (2015). A cost/benefit analysis of consumer CATA and trained descriptive analysis. In: 1st Afrosense Conference. 23-26 November. Stellenbosch, South Africa.