July 2025 | Product Testing

4 Recommended Techniques for Product Testing

Companies committed to rigorous iHUTs and continuous product improvement can, in most instances, achieve product superiority over their competitors. This superiority, in turn, helps build brand share, magnifies the positive effects of all marketing activities (advertising, promotion, selling, etc.), and often allows the superior product to command a premium price.

iHUTs create opportunities for the companies who are dedicated to product superiority and to continuous product improvement. What are the best techniques to use for iHUTs?

Recommended Techniques

The monadic, sequential monadic, paired-comparison, and protomonadic research designs are the most widely used for product testing. Monadic and Sequential Monadic designs are recommended as the best methods for iHUTs, especially the Monadic test:

1. Monadic Testing typically is the best method.
   Testing a product on its own (by itself) offers many advantages. Interaction between products (which occurs in paired-comparison tests and sequential monadics) 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 development of norms and action standards.
2. 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. Asking consumers to test two products in their homes runs the risk of miscommunication and confusion between the two products, a significant disadvantage compared to a monadic design.
3. Paired-Comparison Designs (in which the consumer is asked to use two products simultaneously and determine which product is better) appeal to our common sense.
   It’s a wonderful design if presenting evidence to a jury, because of its “face value” or “face validity.” The paired-comparison 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. The paired-comparison test does not lend itself to the use of normative data. The paired-comparison test 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). For in-home usage testing, there is the great risk that the two products will be confused by the respondent.
4. The Protomonadic Design (and the definition of this term varies 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 (because each product is seen first by half of the sample, and this data is not tainted by interaction with the other product), 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 testing (because of the complexity of execution in the home).

In Closing

Monadic research designs are recommended for iHUTs because virtually all consumer products can be tested monadically, and the results are free from interaction effects and suppression effects. Since only one product is tested, there is less chance for respondent confusion and error. Some products cannot be accurately tested in a paired-comparison design. For example, a product with a very strong flavor (hot pepper sauce, alcohol, etc.) may deaden or inhibit the taste buds so that the respondent cannot accurately taste the second product in a paired-comparison test.

While most iHuts are conducted in the food, beverage, and household consumables categories, the concepts and methods of iHUTs are applicable to many product categories, although the structure and mechanics of execution will vary. For example, computer software, furniture, small appliances, large appliances, cosmetics, OTC medicines, and toys can be tested in-home. Power tools, lawnmowers, trimmers, dog food, cat food, and bug spray can be tested in-home. Any product used in or around the home can be tested in-home.

Jerry W. Thomas

CEO

• 
• 

Bonnie Janzen

President

• 
• 

Felicia Rogers

Corporate Executive Vice President

• 
• 

We Are Here To Help