1、Designation: E 1958 07Standard Guide forSensory Claim Substantiation1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 1958; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses ind
2、icates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.INTRODUCTIONFormats or standards for testing related to claim substantiation cannot be considered without a frameof reference of where that format or standard would fit wi
3、thin the legal framework that surrounds thetopic. Tests are performed for three basic reasons:(1) Comparison of ProductsDetermines how one product compares to another, usually acompetitor or earlier version of itself.(2) Substantiation of ClaimsEnables marketing personnel to use positive references
4、throughadvertising or packaging, or both, in the presentation of the product to the consumer.(3) Test PerformanceAscertains and establishes the tested product performance within the scopeof its intended use.Compelling and aggressive claims are sure to be scrutinized closely by competitive firms, and
5、 ifinconsistencies are found through competitive test data, the claims could be challenged in one or moreof the following venues: (1) National Advertising Division of the Council of the Better BusinessBureau, Inc. (NAD), (2) National Advertising Review Board (NARB), (3) one or more media, suchas pri
6、nt, broadcast, or electronic media, (4) Consumer Advocacy Organizations, and (5) Civil orFederal courts.No single test design or standard test will prevent challenges. The criteria used by each of thepotential forums are not identical and are constantly evolving. With the introduction of newtechnolo
7、gies coupled with changing consumer demands, testing processes and protocols that weresufficient five or ten years ago may not hold up under todays criteria and scrutiny. Conversely, it canonly be speculated about the testing requirements of the future. The one constant is that, as advocatesof their
8、 clients positions, attorneys will defend their clients testing processes and protocol whilequestioning with great detail every aspect of their competitors protocol in the attempt to sway thearbiter to agree that their clients are in the right.This guide demonstrates what a group of professionals wh
9、o are skilled in the science of testingconsider reasonable, and represents an effective method for both defendant and challenger todetermine the viability of a claim. The keyword is “reasonable.” If a particular aspect of a test is notreasonable for a specific application, it should not be used. Car
10、e should be taken to clearly define thereasons and data supporting a deviation from the standard, as any departure invites scrutiny. Sincedepartures are inevitable, the word “should” is used in this guide to indicate when other techniquesmay have application in certain unusual circumstances. Wheneve
11、r a test protocol has been completed,it should be critiqued for weaknesses in reasonability. If weaknesses are found, corrective actionshould be taken, since the competition may point out any weakness or discrepancy and challenge the“reasonableness” of the study.With the importance of “reasonablenes
12、s,” the question remains, “What is reasonable?” Unfortu-nately, there is no specific answer to that question. The measure of “reasonable” depends on thecompany making the claim and its approach toward advertising. Some companies are aggressive;others are conservative. It will depend on the nature of
13、 the claim and the status of the competitor, themagnitude of the advertising campaign, and the frequency of the advertisements exposure. Marketpressures (such as timing), testing budgets, and the internal dynamics of a companys marketing andlegal/regulatory approval departments also affect the inter
14、pretation of “reasonable.” Competition willconsider most tests unreasonable; therefore, it is more important to focus on whether the review boardconsiders the test more reasonable than the competitors challenge.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
15、19428-2959, United States.1. Scope1.1 This guide covers reasonable practices for designing andimplementing sensory tests that validate claims pertaining onlyto the sensory or perceptual attributes, or both, of a product.This guide was developed for use in the United States and mustbe adapted to the
16、laws and regulations for advertisement claimsubstantiation for any other country. A claim is a statementabout a product that highlights its advantages, sensory orperceptual attributes, or product changes or differences com-pared to other products in order to enhance its marketability.Attribute, perf
17、ormance, and hedonic claims, both comparativeand non-comparative, are covered. This guide includes broadprinciples covering selecting and recruiting representativeconsumer samples, selecting and preparing products, construct-ing product rating forms, test execution, and statistical han-dling of data
18、. The objective of this guide is to disseminate goodsensory and consumer testing practices. Validation of claimsshould be made more defendable if the essence of this guide isfollowed.Table of ContentsSectionIntroductionScope 1Referenced Documents 2Terminology 3Basis of Claim Classification 4Consumer
19、 Based Affective Testing 5Sampling 5.1Sampling Techniques 5.2Selection of Products 5.3Sampling of Products When Both Products Are Currently onthe Market5.4Handling of Products When Both Products Are Currently onthe Market5.5Sampling of Products Not Yet on the Market 5.6Sample Preparation/Test Protoc
20、ol 5.7Test DesignConsumer Testing 6Data Collection Strategies 6.6Interviewing Techniques 6.7Type of Questions 6.8Questionnaire Design 6.9Instruction to Respondents 6.10Instructions to Interviewers 6.11General/Overall Questions 6.12Positioning of the Key Product Rating Questions 6.13Total Test Contex
21、t and Presentation Matters 6.14Specific Attribute Questions 6.15Classification or Demographic Questions 6.16Preference Questions 6.17Test Location 7Test Execution by Way of Test AgenciesFood and Non-FoodTesting8Laboratory Testing Methods 9Types of Tests 9.2Advantages and Limitations of the Use of Tr
22、ained DescriptivePanels in Claims Support Research 9.3Test DesignLaboratory Testing 10Product Procurement 10.6Experimental Design 10.7Data Collection 10.8Data Analysis 10.9Questionnaire Construction 11Test Facility 12Statistical Analysis 13Paired-Preference Studies 13.1Superiority Claims 13.2Parity
23、Claims 13.3Paired Comparison/Difference Studies 13.4Analysis of Data from Scales 13.5Keywords 14Commonly Asked Questions About ASTM and ClaimSubstantiationAppendix X12. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2E 253 Terminology Relating to Sensory Evaluation of Ma-terials and ProductsE 1885 Test Meth
24、od for Sensory AnalysisTriangle TestE 2164 Test Method for Directional Difference Test2.2 ASTM Publications:3ASTM Manual 13 Descriptive Analysis Testing for SensoryEvaluationASTM Manual 26 Sensory Testing Methods: Second Edi-tionSTP 913 Physical Requirement Guidelines for SensoryEvaluation Laborator
25、ies3. Terminology3.1 DefinitionsTerms used in this guide are in accordancewith Terminology E 253. Additional terms are as follows:3.1.1 attribute difference rating testthis test also deter-mines if one or more specific attributes differ between twosamples. The intensities of the attributes are measu
26、red onrating scales showing several degrees of intensity. One or morespecific attributes of the product that relate to the claim arerated. Samples are presented, and the panelists task is toevaluate and assign each test sample an intensity to reflect theamount of the designated attribute(s).3.1.2 at
27、tribute difference testsin these test methods, theattribute of interest is defined prior to testing, and the panelistsare trained to be able to identify the attribute in question andselect or rate the relative intensity of that attribute. It is notnecessary to evaluate every occurring attribute, onl
28、y theattributes being addressed in the claim.3.1.3 ceiling effectsthis typically occurs when the major-ity of the scores occur toward the top of a rating scale. Whenthe products are well-liked, there is not a sufficient amount ofscale available to the respondents to differentiate the products.Variat
29、ion in rating scores is compressed, making mean-basedstatistical tests misleading. Therefore, analysis should be per-formed using a more robust statistical model that does not havedistributional requirements and is less prone to outlier influ-ence such as multinomial logistic regression.3.1.4 centra
30、l location testing (CLT)method of testing thatprovides maximum control over product preparation and us-age. Central location testing assures that the participant actu-ally evaluated the product in question and provides his or her1This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E18 on SensoryE
31、valuation and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E18.05 on SensoryApplications-General.Current edition approved April 1, 2007. Published May 2007. Originallyapproved in 1998. Last previous edition approved in 2006 as E 1958 06.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.ast
32、m.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.3Available from ASTM International Headquarters, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, POBox C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.E195807
33、2own opinion immediately following evaluation, rather thanrelying on past usage or recollection of a CLT.3.1.5 comparative claimsdesigned to compare similaritiesand differences between two or more products. The basis forcomparison can be within the same brand, between two brands,or between a brand a
34、nd other products in the category.3.1.6 context/contrast effectflavor/texture of one samplecan have an influence on the perceived flavor/texture of eachsubsequent sample.3.1.7 directional difference testthis test method is usedwhen determining whether one sample has more of a particularsensory chara
35、cteristic than another. Two samples are presented,either simultaneously or sequentially, and the respondentchooses one of the samples as having a higher level of thespecified characteristics.3.1.8 equality claimsin equality claims, two products areclaimed to be equal in one or more particular featur
36、e.3.1.9 experimental errorvariability between the panelist.This error can be accounted for by using more than one panelistto test each sample.3.1.10 home use testing (HUT)refers to tests that allowrespondents to use the products in a more natural environment,rather than the controlled environment.3.
37、1.11 measurement errorrepeatability within the indi-vidual panelist. This error can be accounted for by having eachpanelist test a particular sample more than once.3.1.12 monadic or single product testsproduct tests whereonly one product is experienced and rated.3.1.13 parity claimsparity claims are
38、 claims that rankequivalent levels of performance or liking when comparing aparticular product to another product. In general, parity claimsare made relative to a market/category leader. Within parityclaims, two additional classes exist:3.1.14 pattern effectany pattern in order will be detectedquick
39、ly.3.1.15 positional biasrespondents may be more sensitiveto differences in specific samples in a series, such as the first orlast sample.3.1.16 product variabilitybatch-to-batch variation. Thiserror can be accounted for by testing multiple and representa-tive batches of a product.3.1.17 self-admini
40、stered questionnairequestionnaires in-dependently completed by the respondent are referred to asself-administered.3.1.18 superiority claimsa superiority claim is supportedif a statistically significant proportion of the respondents preferthe advertisers product.3.1.19 superiority claimssuperiority c
41、laims assert ahigher level of performance or liking relative to another brand.Superiority claims can be opposed to competitive brands (forexample, “cleans better than brand Z”) or opposed to an earlierformula of the brand (for example, “now more cleaning powerthan before”).3.1.20 unsurpassed claimsi
42、n unsurpassed claims, theclaim stated indicates that the product(s) selected for compari-son is not better/higher (or greater than) in some way to thetarget product(s) for which the analysis is executed.4. Basis of Claim Classification4.1 Afundamental step in advertising claim substantiation iscreat
43、ing an explicit statement of the claim prior to actualtesting. The statement is then forwarded to all parties con-cerned in the substantiation process. Concerned parties couldinclude marketing, marketing research, legal, consumer testing,sensory evaluation, research suppliers, etc. The statement ise
44、ssential as it can encourage collaboration in terms of corporateresources, confirms the selection of appropriate test methods,and has the potential to maximize the chance of makingreliable business decisions about the proposed claim, pendingthe results of substantiation research. Collaboration among
45、 allinvolved parties prior to executing substantiation research iscritical in achieving the best results.All involved parties shouldmeet and agree (perhaps several times) prior to implementingthe substantiation research.4.2 Familiarity with the general classification of advertisingclaims is importan
46、t in developing clear statements of claims atan early stage and for developing a rational plan for testing.This familiarity also facilitates the process of selecting appro-priate testing methods, among the many types of methodsavailable to the consumer/sensory science professional. Eachmethod answer
47、s specific questions and may support one type ofclaim but not another. Therefore, the consumer/sensory sciencefunction provides an important source of information andexperience in claim substantiation and will provide much of thedefinition of testing methodology. There are multiple ways tosupport cl
48、aims depending on the characteristics of the claim.Two approaches are consumer based and trained panel basedevaluations.4.3 Advertising claims can be divided into two fundamentalclassifications: Comparative and Non-Comparative. The dis-tinction between the two classifications is whether a compari-so
49、n is made relative to an existing product (advertisers orcompetitors) or to itself.4.4 Comparative Claims are designed to compare similari-ties and differences between two or more products. The basisfor comparison can be within the same brand, between twobrands, or between a brand and other products in the category.4.4.1 Comparative claims generally take one of two forms:parity or superiority. Parity and superiority are further sub-classified into two central areas of application: hedonic andattribute/perception. Hedonics broadly concern measuri
