For purposes of product testing, several tasks have been used to measure subjects’ discrimination ability (i.e., their ability to distinguish between two slightly different product formulations). Three of the more common tasks are repeat paired comparisons, triangle tests, and preference rankings. In this empirical study, the properties of these three tasks are compared. The repeat paired comparison test is found to be the most sensitive discrimination task, in that subjects demonstrate the greatest ability in distinguishing between formulations, and preference ranking is the least sensitive. The finding that discrimination ability measured by triangle tests is significantly correlated with that measured by paired comparisons lends support to the validity of consistent preference discrimination testing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BuchananBruce S. (1986), “A Model for Repeat Paired Comparison Preference Tests,” working paper, New York University.
2.
BuchananBruce S. (1987), “A Model for Repeat Trial Product Tests,” Psychometrika, forthcoming.
3.
BuchananBruce S. and MorrisonDonald G. (1984), “Optimal Design of Parity Tests,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28 (December), 453–66.
4.
BuchananBruce S. and MorrisonDonald G. (1985), “Measuring Simple Preferences: An Approach to Blind, Forced Choice Product Testing,” Marketing Science, 4 (Spring), 93–109.
5.
CoombsClyde H., DawesRobert M., and TverskyAmos (1970), Mathematical Psychology: An Elementary Introduction.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
6.
DayRalph L. (1974), “Measuring Preferences,” in Handbook of Marketing Research, FerberR., ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
7.
FerrisGeorge E. (1958), “The k-Visit Method of Consumer Testing,” Biometrics, 14 (March), 39–49.
8.
GreenbergAllan and CollinsSy (1966), “Paired Comparison Taste Tests: Some Food for Thought,” Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (February), 76–80.
9.
GreenhalghC. (1966), “Some Techniques and Interesting Results in Discrimination Testing,” Journal of the Market Research Society, 8 (October), 215–35.
10.
GruberAlin and LindbergBarbara (1966), “Sensitivity, Reliability, and Consumer Taste Testing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (August), 235–8.
11.
HopkinsJ. W. and GridgemanN. T. (1955), “Comparative Sensitivity of Pair and Triad Flavor Difference Tests,” Biometrics, 11 (March), 63–8.
12.
HorsnellGareth (1969), “A Theory of Consumer Preference Derived From Repeat Paired Preference Testing,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 132, 164–93.
13.
HorsnellGareth (1977), “Paired Comparison Product Testing When Individual Preferences are Stochastic: An Alternative Model,” Applied Statistics, 26 (2), 162–72.
14.
HyettG. P. and McKenzieJ. R. (1976), “Discrimination Tests and Repeat Paired Comparisons Tests,” Journal of the Market Research Society, 18 (January), 24–31.
15.
IrwinFrancis W. (1958), “An Analysis of the Concepts of Discrimination and Preference,” American Journal of Psychology, 71, 152–63.
16.
LordFrederic M. (1959), “An Approach to Mental Test Theory,” Psychometrika, 24 (December), 283–302.
17.
LordFrederic M. (1975), “Formula Scoring and Number Right Scoring,” Journal of Educational Measurement, 12 (Spring), 7–11.
18.
LordFrederic M. and NovickMelvin R. (1968), Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
19.
McAlisterLeigh and PessemierEdgar (1982), “Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 311–22.
20.
MorrisonDonald G. (1981), “Triangle Taste Tests: Are the Subjects Who Respond Correctly Lucky or Good?” Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), 111–19.
21.
MorrisonDonald G. and BrockwayGeorge (1979), “A Modified Beta Binomial Model with Applications to Multiple Choice and Taste Tests,” Psychometrika, 44 (December), 427–42.
22.
MoskowitzHoward R. (1983), Product Testing and Sensory Evaluation of Foods.Westport, CT: Food and Nutrition Press, Inc.
23.
MoskowitzHoward R. (1985), New Directions for Product Testing and Sensory Analysis of Foods.Westport, CT: Food and Nutrition Press, Inc.
24.
MoskowitzHoward R., JacobsBarry, and FirtleNeil (1980), “Discrimination Testing and Product Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (February), 84–90.
25.
PennyJ. C., HuntI. M., and TwymanW. A. (1972), “Product Testing Methodology in Relation to Marketing Problems: A Review,” Journal of the Market Research Society, 14 (January), 1–29.
26.
RobbinsHerbert (1956), “An Empirical Bayes Approach to Statistics,” Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability.Berkeley: University of California Press, 131–48.
27.
RoperBurns (1969), “Sensitivity, Reliability, and Consumer Taste Testing: Some ‘Rights’ and ‘Wrongs’,” Journal of Marketing Research, 6 (February), 102–5.
