1、Designation: E 1958 07e1Standard 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 i
2、ndicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.e1NOTEEditorially corrected 3.1.13 in February 2008.INTRODUCTIONFormats or standards for testing related to claim substantiation cannot be considered without a frameof r
3、eference of where that format or standard would fit within 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 ClaimsE
4、nables marketing personnel to use positive references 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 su
5、re to be scrutinized closely by competitive firms, and 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
6、Review Board (NARB), (3) one or more media, suchas print, 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 con
7、stantly evolving. With the introduction of newtechnologies 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
8、future. The one constant is that, as advocatesof their 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.Th
9、is guide demonstrates what a group of professionals who 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
10、for a specific application, it should not be used. Care 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
11、 application in certain unusual circumstances. Whenever 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“reasonablene
12、ss” of the study.With the importance of “reasonableness,” 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;ot
13、hers are conservative. It will depend on the nature of 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
14、/regulatory approval departments also affect the interpretation of “reasonable.” Competition will1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.consider most tests unreasonable; therefore, it is more important to focus on whether th
15、e review boardconsiders the test more reasonable than the competitors challenge.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 f
16、or use in the United States and mustbe adapted to the 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
17、 in order to enhance its marketability.Attribute, performance, 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 fo
18、rms, test execution, and statistical han-dling of data. 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
19、 2Terminology 3Basis of Claim Classification 4Consumer 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 N
20、ot Yet on the Market 5.6Sample Preparation/Test Protocol 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
21、the Key Product Rating Questions 6.13Total Test Context 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 o
22、f Tests 9.2Advantages and Limitations of the Use of Trained 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
23、-Preference Studies 13.1Superiority Claims 13.2Parity 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
24、 Evaluation of Ma-terials and ProductsE 1885 Test Method 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
25、Requirement Guidelines for SensoryEvaluation Laboratories3. 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 t
26、wosamples. The intensities of the attributes are measured 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 ref
27、lect theamount of the designated attribute(s).3.1.2 attribute 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 n
28、otnecessary to evaluate every occurring attribute, only 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 t
29、o the respondents to differentiate the products.1This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E18 on Sensory Evaluation and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E18.05 on SensoryApplications-General.Current edition approved April 1, 2007. Published May 2007. Originally approved in
30、1998. Last previous edition approved in 2006 as E 1958 06.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.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.3Av
31、ailable from ASTM International Headquarters, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, POBox C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.E195807e12Variation in rating scores is compressed, making mean-basedstatistical tests misleading. Therefore, analysis should be per-formed using a more robust statistical model that doe
32、s not havedistributional requirements and is less prone to outlier influ-ence such as multinomial logistic regression.3.1.4 central location testing (CLT)method of testing thatprovides maximum control over product preparation and us-age. Central location testing assures that the participant actu-all
33、y evaluated the product in question and provides his or herown 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 with
34、in the same brand, between two brands,or between a brand and 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 determinin
35、g whether one sample has more of a particularsensory characteristic 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 produc
36、ts areclaimed to be equal in one or more particular feature.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 nat
37、ural environment,rather than the controlled environment.3.1.11 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 e
38、xperienced and rated.3.1.13 parity claimsparity claims are 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: equa
39、lity claims andunsurpassed claims.3.1.14 pattern effectany pattern in order will be detectedquickly.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
40、 be accounted for by testing multiple and representa-tive batches of a product.3.1.17 self-administered questionnairequestionnaires in-dependently completed by the respondent are referred to asself-administered.3.1.18 superiority claimsa superiority claim is supportedif a statistically significant p
41、roportion of the respondents preferthe advertisers product.3.1.19 superiority claimssuperiority claims 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 earlierfo
42、rmula of the brand (for example, “now more cleaning powerthan before”).3.1.20 unsurpassed claimsin 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.
43、4. Basis of Claim Classification4.1 Afundamental step in advertising claim substantiation iscreating 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
44、 research, legal, consumer testing,sensory evaluation, research suppliers, etc. The statement isessential 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 decis
45、ions about the proposed claim, pendingthe results of substantiation research. Collaboration among 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 substan
46、tiation research.4.2 Familiarity with the general classification of advertisingclaims is important 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 t
47、he many types of methodsavailable to the consumer/sensory science professional. Eachmethod answers 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 an
48、d will provide much of thedefinition of testing methodology. There are multiple ways tosupport claims 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: Comparat
49、ive and Non-Comparative. The dis-tinction between the two classifications is whether a compari-son 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 t
