Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
N. Rodrigue, Michel Guillet, J. Fortin, Jean-François Martin (2000)
Comparing information obtained from ranking and descriptive tests of four sweet corn productsFood Quality and Preference, 11
Moskowitz (1980)
Psychometric evaluation of food preferencesJournal of Foodservice Systems, 1
J. Vermunt, J. Magidson (2005)
Factor Analysis with Categorical Indicators: A Comparison Between Traditional and Latent Class Approaches
J. Louviere, T. Islam (2008)
A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scalingJournal of Business Research, 61
J. Guinard, R. Pangborn, M. Lewis (1986)
The Time-Course of Astringency in Wine upon Repeated IngestionAmerican Journal of Enology and Viticulture
U. Enneking, Claudia Neumann, S. Henneberg (2007)
How important intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decisionFood Quality and Preference, 18
Steve Goodman, L. Lockshin, Eli Cohen (2006)
Using the best-worst method to examine market segments and identify different influences of consumer choice
Diana Haytko, Christina Simmers (2009)
What's your preference?Management Research News, 32
R. Gaweł, P. Iland, I. Francis (2001)
Characterizing the astringency of red wine: a case studyFood Quality and Preference, 12
S. Cordelle, C. Lange, P. Schlich (2004)
On the consistency of liking scores: insights from a study including 917 consumers from 10 to 80 years oldFood Quality and Preference, 15
Gescheider (1988)
Psychophysical scalingAnnual Review of Psychology, 39
S. Jaeger, J. Rose (2008)
Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: A case studyFood Quality and Preference, 19
H. Lee, M. O'Mahony (2004)
Sensory Difference TestingFood Science and Biotechnology, 13
M. Frøst (2006)
Liking and exposure: First, second and tenth time aroundPhysiology & Behavior, 89
J. Prescott (2005)
COMMENTARY: CHOICE VERSUS DIRECT SCALING: IS “NO PREFERENCE” AN OPTION?Journal of Sensory Studies, 20
H. Moskowitz (1980)
PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF FOOD PREFERENCESFoodservice Research International, 1
I. Lambropoulos, I. Roussis (2007)
Inhibition of the decrease of volatile esters and terpenes during storage of a white wine and a model wine medium by caffeic acid and gallic acidFood Research International, 40
T. Flynn, J. Louviere, T. Peters, J. Coast (2007)
Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it.Journal of health economics, 26 1
H. Moskowitz (2005)
THOUGHTS ON SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT, SENSORY METRICS AND USEFULNESS OF OUTCOMESJournal of Sensory Studies, 20
L. Thurstone (1994)
A law of comparative judgment.Psychological Review, 34
Karen Hein, S. Jaeger, B. Carr, C. Delahunty (2008)
Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methodsFood Quality and Preference, 19
H. Bleichrodt, M. Johannesson (1997)
An Experimental Test of a Theoretical Foundation for Rating-scale ValuationsMedical Decision Making, 17
N. Villanueva, A. Petenate, M. Silva (2000)
Performance of three affective methods and diagnosis of the ANOVA modelFood Quality and Preference, 11
H. Macfie, N. Bratchell, K. Greenhoff, L. Vallis (1989)
DESIGNS TO BALANCE THE EFFECT OF ORDER OF PRESENTATION AND FIRST-ORDER CARRY-OVER EFFECTS IN HALL TESTSJournal of Sensory Studies, 4
M. Hetherington, L. Pirie, S. Nabb (2002)
Stimulus satiation: effects of repeated exposure to foods on pleasantness and intakeAppetite, 38
Meullenet (2007)
10.1002/9780470277539.ch7
N. Baryłko‐Pikielna, I. Matuszewska, M. Jeruszka, K. Kozłowska, A. Brzozowska, W. Roszkowski (2004)
Discriminability and appropriateness of category scaling versus ranking methods to study sensory preferences in elderlyFood Quality and Preference, 15
Victoire Dairou, J. Sieffermann (2002)
A Comparison of 14 Jams Characterized by Conventional Profile and a Quick Original Method, the Flash ProfileJournal of Food Science, 67
B. Rousseau, Stefanie Stroh, M. O'Mahony (2002)
Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: effects of memory and response biasFood Quality and Preference, 13
G. Pickering, Gordon Robert (2006)
PERCEPTION OF MOUTHFEEL SENSATIONS ELICITED BY RED WINE ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SENSITIVITY TO 6‐N‐PROPYLTHIOURACILJournal of Sensory Studies, 21
E. Köster, T. Couronne, F. Léon, C. Levy, A. Marcelino (2003)
Repeatability in hedonic sensory measurement: a conceptual explorationFood Quality and Preference, 14
S. Lau, M. O'Mahony, B. Rousseau (2004)
Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discriminationPerception & Psychophysics, 66
Crask (1987)
An exploration of the interval properties of three commonly used marketing research scales: a magnitude estimation approachJournal of the Market Research Society, 29
Simone Mueller, L. Francis (2008)
The relationship between wine liking, subjective and objective wine knowledge: Does it matter who is in your 'consumer' sample?
D. Peryam, F. Pilgrim (1957)
Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences.Food Technology
M. O'Mahony, B. Rousseau (2003)
Discrimination testing: a few ideas, old and newFood Quality and Preference, 14
J. Lee, G. Soutar, J. Louviere (2007)
Measuring values using best‐worst scaling: The LOV examplePsychology & Marketing, 24
C. Nurgel, G. Pickering (2005)
CONTRIBUTION OF GLYCEROL, ETHANOL AND SUGAR TO THE PERCEPTION OF VISCOSITY AND DENSITY ELICITED BY MODEL WHITE WINESJournal of Texture Studies, 36
A. Marley, J. Louviere (2005)
Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choicesJournal of Mathematical Psychology, 49
H. Lawless, Yen-Fei Liu, Craig Goldwyn (1997)
EVALUATION OF WINE QUALITY USING A SMALL‐PANEL HEDONIC SCALING METHODJournal of Sensory Studies, 12
S. Jaeger, A. Jørgensen, M. Aaslyng, W. Bredie (2008)
Best–worst scaling: An introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation with food productsFood Quality and Preference, 19
M. Ben-Akiva, T. Morikawa, F. Shiroishi (1991)
Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking dataJournal of Business Research, 23
Patrik Jones, R. Gaweł, I. Francis, E. Waters (2008)
The influence of interactions between major white wine components on the aroma, flavour and texture of model white wineFood Quality and Preference, 19
A. Colonna, D. Adams, A. Noble (2008)
Comparison of procedures for reducing astringency carry-over effects in evaluation of red winesAustralian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 10
D. Cox, M. Clark, V. Mialon (2001)
A cross-cultural methodological study of the uses of two common hedonic response scalesFood Quality and Preference, 12
A. Marley, T. Flynn, J. Louviere (2008)
Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choiceJournal of Mathematical Psychology, 52
L. Yeh, Kwang-Ok Kim, P. Chompreeda, H. Rimkeeree, N. Yau, D. Lundahl (1998)
Comparison in Use of the 9-Point Hedonic Scale between Americans, Chinese, Koreans, and ThaiFood Quality and Preference, 9
Hélène Fontoin, C. Saucier, P. Teissèdre, Y. Glories (2008)
Effect of pH, ethanol and acidity on astringency and bitterness of grape seed tannin oligomers in model wine solutionFood Quality and Preference, 19
R. Ishii, H. Chang, M. O'Mahony (2007)
A comparison of serial monadic and attribute-by-attribute protocols for simple descriptive analysis with untrained judgesFood Quality and Preference, 18
M. Hersleth, Bjørn-Helge Mevik, T. Næs, J. Guinard (2003)
Effect of contextual factors on liking for wine—use of robust design methodologyFood Quality and Preference, 14
J. Delarue, J. Sieffermann (2004)
Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy productsFood Quality and Preference, 15
Cohen (2004)
What's your preference?Marketing Research, 16
Lattey (2007)
Wine quality and consumer preferences: understanding consumer needsAustralian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 225
H. Lee, D. Hout, M. Hautus (2007)
Comparison of performance in the A-Not A, 2-AFC, and same-different tests for the flavor discrimination of margarines: The effect of cognitive decision strategiesFood Quality and Preference, 18
H. Lawless, G. Malone (1986)
THE DISRIMINATIVE EFFICIENCY OF COMMON SCALING METHODSJournal of Sensory Studies, 1
E. Köster (2003)
The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallaciesFood Quality and Preference, 14
J. Louviere, D. Street, Leonie Burgess, Nada Wasi, T. Islam, A. Marley (2008)
Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference informationJournal of choice modelling, 1
J. Magidson, J. Vermunt (2001)
Latent Class Factor and Cluster Models, Bi-Plots, and Related Graphical DisplaysSociological Methodology, 31
H. Lee (2004)
Sensory Difference Testing: Thurstonian ModelsFood Science and Biotechnology
P. Auger, T. Devinney, J. Louviere (2007)
Using Best–Worst Scaling Methodology to Investigate Consumer Ethical Beliefs Across CountriesJournal of Business Ethics, 70
Adam Finn, J. Louviere (1992)
Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food SafetyJournal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11
H. Lee, M. O'Mahony (2005)
Sensory evaluation and marketing: measurement of a consumer conceptFood Quality and Preference, 16
C. Lange, S. Issanchou, P. Combris (2000)
Expected versus experienced quality: trade-off with price ☆Food Quality and Preference, 11
Background and Aims: Best–worst scaling (BWS) is compared to standard hedonic scaling for measuring consumer wine preferences. BWS is a relatively new method for producing ratio‐level scales and has gained recent attention for application in sensory research, but has not been applied to wine. Methods and Results: Regular wine consumers (112) evaluated eight designed wines with both scaling methods in an intra‐subject design over two test periods. The methods did not result in comparable product liking results. The eight wines could almost be differentiated on an aggregated level with hedonic ratings (P = 0.076); there was no significant difference with BWS. Latent class analysis was used to identify two clusters, which differed on the preferences for the designed sensory components. The BWS design had to be split into several blocks, so no complete individual measures were available, which prevented analysing heterogeneity for this method. Conclusions: BWS needs more wines to be assessed per person in order to discriminate between red wines and to allow modelling of consumer preference heterogeneity. Respondents would have to accomplish complete individual BWS designs, which requires repeated exposure to the same set of wines over several tasting sessions. Significance of the Study: This study demonstrates that BWS is not as suitable for sensory consumer preference measurement of red wine as hedonic rating. While BWS has shown a higher discriminative ability for different products and in non‐sensory research, the factors of alcohol, tannin and memory fatigue make it less practical for red wine sensory measurement compared to hedonic rating.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research – Wiley
Published: Oct 1, 2009
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.