ArticleCurrent research in food science2025
How to measure consumer's inconsistency in sensory testing?
Article in Current research in food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding the Flavor Structure of Jiang-Flavor Low-Alcohol Base Baijiu: A Machine Learning-Driven Approach to Reveal the Flavor Evolution Patterns and Key Quality Control Nodes.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Consumer-Oriented Sensory Evaluation Scale for Pale Lager Beer.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Trends and Directions of Preference Elicitation and Assessment in Food Science: Single-, Pair-, and Multi-Criteria Ranking Methods.Food science & nutrition · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Consumer sensory testing is the basis for determining directions of product development in the food industry. However, while compliance assessment by trained and expert assessors is well developed, few information is available on testing consumer consistency. Therefore, we provide a statistical framework to rank assessors and attributes according to the level of inconsistency, as well as to identify inconsistent assessors, based on Kendall rank correlation coefficients. The detection of (in)consistency requires evaluations on two connected scales. The suggested approach is illustrated by data from sensory tests of biscuits enriched with three pollens at different levels. 100 consumers evaluated the samples on two different scales (nine category monotonic ascending hedonic response scale, five-category just about right (JAR) intensity scale). The 88 consistent assessors are found using a wider range of both the liking scale and JAR scale than the 12 inconsistent assessors whose evaluations do not have a significantly negative rank correlation. Future consumer tests are recommended to include multiple scales. The proposed framework aims to identify and even filter out the potentially biasing inconsistent evaluations. Questions on attributes leading to highly inconsistent responses should be reconsidered in future sensory tests on the same food product.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.