You are here:
Home |
Research Services |
Custom Product Testing Techniques
Custom Product Testing Techniques
Monadic
Monadic testing typically is the best method. Testing a product alone offers
many advantages. Interaction between products (which occurs in
paired-comparison tests) is eliminated. The monadic test simulates real life
(that's the way we usually use products, one at a time). By focusing the
respondent's attention upon one product, the monadic test provides the most
accurate and actionable diagnostic information. Additionally, the monadic
design permits the use of normative data and the development of norms and
action standards.
Virtually all products can be tested monadically, whereas many products cannot
be accurately tested in paired-comparison designs. For example, a product with
a very strong flavor (hot peppers, alcohol, etc.) may deaden or inhibit the
taste buds so that the respondent cannot really taste the second product.
Sequential Monadic
Sequential monadic designs are often used to reduce costs. In this
design, each respondent evaluates two products (he or she uses one product and
evaluates it, then uses the second product and evaluates it). The sequential
monadic design works reasonably well in most instances, and offers some of the
same advantages as pure monadic testing.
One must be aware of what we call the "suppression effect" in sequential
monadic testing, however. All the test scores will be lower in a sequential
monadic design, compared to a pure monadic test. Therefore, the results from
sequential monadic tests cannot be compared to results from monadic tests.
Also, as in paired-comparison testing, an "interaction effect" is at work in
sequential monadic designs. If one of the two products is exceptionally good,
then the other product's test scores are disproportionately lower, and vice
versa.
Protomonadic
The protomonadic design (the definition of this term varies greatly
from researcher to researcher) begins as a monadic test, followed by a
paired-comparison. Often, sequential monadic tests are also followed by a
paired-comparison test. The protomonadic design yields good diagnostic data,
and the paired-comparison at the end can be thought of as a safety net-as added
insurance that the results are correct. The protomonadic design is typically
used in central-location taste testing, not in-home (because of the complexity
of execution in-home).
Paired-Comparison
Paired-comparison designs (in which the consumer is asked to use two
products and determine which product is better) appeal to our common sense. The
paired-comparison is a wonderful design if presenting evidence to a jury,
because of its "face value" or "face validity." It can be a very sensitive
testing technique (i.e., it can measure very small differences) between two
products. Also, the paired-comparison test is often less expensive than other
methods, because sample sizes can be smaller in some instances.
Paired-comparison testing, however, is limited in value for a serious, ongoing
product testing program. The paired-comparison test does not tell us when both
products are bad and does not lend itself to the use of normative data. It is
heavily influenced by the "interaction effect" (i.e., any variations in the
control product will create corresponding variance in the test product's
scores).
Repeated Pairs
A repeated paired-comparison taste test is exactly what the name suggests. Each
respondent participates in a paired-comparison taste test (e.g., product J
versus product H), followed by a second paired-comparison test (product J
versus product H). However, in the second test, the products are presented as
two different products (i.e., not labeled as products J and H).
The purpose of the repeated paired-comparison taste test is to
identify nondiscriminators, the people who don't choose the same product in
both tests. That is, it is assumed that someone who chooses product J in the
first paired-comparison test and chooses product H in the second
paired-comparison test cannot taste (or detect) any difference between the two
products. Typically, these nondiscriminators' answers would not be counted. The
final results would be based only on respondents who could discriminate between
the two products (i.e., based only on those who chose the same product both
times).
Triangle Test
The triangle taste test is used primarily for "difference testing."
Each participant is presented with three products and asked to taste all three
and choose the one that is different from the other two. The triangle taste
test is used to determine who can discriminate (i.e., consistently identify the
one product that's different), and who cannot.
These discriminators are in turn used as members of small expert
panels (sometimes called sensory panels) to assist research and development in
formulating and reformulating products, using the triangle design to determine
if a particular ingredient change, or a change in processing, creates a
detectable difference in the final product. Triangle taste testing is also used
in quality control to determine if a particular production run (or production
from different factories) meets the quality-control standard (i.e., is not
different from the product standard in a triangle taste test using
discriminators).
Sensory Research
The term "sensory research" tends to be used by research and development
scientists and food scientists in much the same way that the marketing world
uses the term "product testing." Many of the methods are identical or very
similar. In general usage, the term "sensory research" tends to refer to
small-scale product testing that is used by research and development scientists
to help them in formulating new foods and beverages, and in reformulating
existing food and beverage products.
Often sensory research is conducted with small panels of consumers,
or small groups of employees, who have demonstrated an above-average ability to
taste, or to detect, small differences in the flavor profile of a food or
beverage.
Ingredient Screening
As a preliminary step in attempting to optimize a particular food or beverage
formulation, it is valuable to develop an understanding of the relative
importance and role of the different ingredients in the formulation. Typically,
a number of product formulations are created, each with a high level and a low
level (or absence) of a particular ingredient-with all other ingredients held
constant. Each respondent usually rates three to five of these different
products, depending upon the type of product.
The products are rated on overall appeal as well as specific
attributes (sweetness, texture, mouth feel, etc.). Who tastes which product is
determined by a complex experimental design plan. The resulting data are
analyzed via ANOVA and MANOVA statistical techniques, as well as regression and
discriminant analyses.
Product Optimization
Product optimization refers to the process of improving a product until it
reaches a maximum level of consumer satisfaction or acceptability. A variety of
research methods can be used to achieve an optimal product, but the term
"product optimization" most typically refers to a structured process in which
various ingredients are systematically varied to create a number of different
products.
These products are then rated by a sample of category users, with
each respondent rating three to five different formulations on overall appeal
as well as rating specific qualities (moistness, saltiness, color, etc.) of the
products. The resulting data is then analyzed by ANOVA and MANOVA, regression
and discriminant analyses, and (depending upon the design) by response surface
analyses. The output of the analyses is a prediction of the product formulation
that would be optimal.
Additional Resources from Decision Analyst
If you would like more information on Product Testing, please contact
Jerry W. Thomas
by email or call
1.800.ANALYSIS (262.5974).
Brochures
Related White Papers
|
