1、Designation: E1958 071 E1958 12Standard Guide forSensory Claim Substantiation1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1958; 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 parenth
2、eses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1 NOTEEditorially corrected 3.1.13 in February 2008.INTRODUCTIONFormats or standards for testing related to claim substantiation cannot be considered without aframe
3、 of reference of where that format or standard would fit within the legal framework thatsurrounds the topic. 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 Cl
4、aimsEnables marketing personnel to use positive references throughadvertising or packaging, or both, in the presentation of the product to the consumer.(3) Test Performance Ascertains and establishes the tested product performance within the scopeof its intended use.Compelling and aggressive claims
5、are sure 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 Advert
6、ising 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 a
7、re constantly 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 o
8、f the 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 ri
9、ght.This 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 notreaso
10、nable 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 techniquesma
11、y have 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“reason
12、ableness” of the study.With the importance of “reasonableness,” the question remains, “What is reasonable?”Unfortunately, there is no specific answer to that question. The measure of “reasonable” depends onthe company making the claim and its approach toward advertising. Some companies are aggressiv
13、e;1 This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E18 on Sensory Evaluationand is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E18.05 on SensoryApplications-General.Current edition approved April 1, 2007Oct. 15, 2012. Published May 2007December 2012. Originally approved in 1998. Last previous
14、edition approved in 20062007 asE1958 06.E1958 071. DOI: 10.1520/E1958-07E01.10.1520/E1958-12.This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Becauseit may not be technically possi
15、ble to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current versionof the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, Wes
16、t Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States1others 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 int
17、ernal dynamics of a companys marketing andlegal/regulatory approval departments also affect the interpretation 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 competitor
18、s challenge.1. Scope1.1 This guide covers reasonable practices for designing and implementing sensory tests that validate claims pertaining only tothe sensory or perceptual attributes, or both, of a product. This guide was developed for use in the United States and must beadapted to the laws and reg
19、ulations for advertisement claim substantiation for any other country. A claim is a statement about aproduct that highlights its advantages, sensory or perceptual attributes, or product changes or differences compared to otherproducts in order to enhance its marketability. Attribute, performance, an
20、d hedonic claims, both comparative and non-comparative,are covered. This guide includes broad principles covering selecting and recruiting representative consumer samples, selecting andpreparing products, constructing product rating forms, test execution, and statistical handling of data. The object
21、ive of this guideis to disseminate good sensory and consumer testing practices. Validation of claims should be made more defendable if the essenceof this guide is followed.Table of ContentsSectionIntroductionScope 1Referenced Documents 2Terminology 3Basis of Claim Classification 4Consumer Based Affe
22、ctive 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 Protocol 5.7Test
23、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 Context and Prese
24、ntation 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 Trained Descr
25、iptivePanels in Claims Support Research9.3Test 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 Claims 13.3P
26、aired Comparison/Difference Studies 13.4Analysis of Data from Scales 13.5Keywords 14Commonly Asked Questions About ASTM and ClaimSubstantiationAppendix X1E1958 1222. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2E253 Terminology Relating to Sensory Evaluation of Materials and ProductsE1885 Test Method for
27、 Sensory AnalysisTriangle TestE2164 Test Method for Directional Difference Test2.2 ASTM Publications:3ASTM Manual 13 Descriptive Analysis Testing for Sensory EvaluationASTM Manual 26 Sensory Testing Methods: Second EditionSTP 913 Physical Requirement Guidelines for Sensory Evaluation Laboratories3.
28、Terminology3.1 DefinitionsTerms used in this guide are in accordance with Terminology E253. Additional terms are as follows:3.1.1 attribute difference rating testthis test also determines if one or more specific attributes differ between two samples. Theintensities of the attributes are measured on
29、rating scales showing several degrees of intensity. One or more specific attributes ofthe product that relate to the claim are rated. Samples are presented, and the panelists task is to evaluate and assign each testsample an intensity to reflect the amount of the designated attribute(s).3.1.2 attrib
30、ute difference testsin these test methods, the attribute of interest is defined prior to testing, and the panelists aretrained to be able to identify the attribute in question and select or rate the relative intensity of that attribute. It is not necessaryto evaluate every occurring attribute, only
31、the attributes being addressed in the claim.3.1.3 ceiling effectsthis typically occurs when the majority of the scores occur toward the top of a rating scale. When theproducts are well-liked, there is not a sufficient amount of scale available to the respondents to differentiate the products. Variat
32、ionin rating scores is compressed, making mean-based statistical tests misleading. Therefore, analysis should be performed using amore robust statistical model that does not have distributional requirements and is less prone to outlier influence such asmultinomial logistic regression.3.1.4 central l
33、ocation testing (CLT)method of testing that provides maximum control over product preparation and usage.Central location testing assures that the participant actually evaluated the product in question and provides his or her own opinionimmediately following evaluation, rather than relying on past us
34、age or recollection of a CLT.3.1.5 comparative claimsdesigned to compare similarities and differences between two or more products. The basis forcomparison can be within the same brand, between two brands, or between a brand and other products in the category.3.1.6 context/contrast effectflavor/text
35、ure of one sample can have an influence on the perceived flavor/texture of eachsubsequent sample.3.1.7 directional difference testthis test method is used when determining whether one sample has more of a particular sensorycharacteristic than another. Two samples are presented, either simultaneously
36、 or sequentially, and the respondent chooses one ofthe samples as having a higher level of the specified characteristics.3.1.8 equality claimsin equality claims, two products are claimed to be equal in one or more particular feature.3.1.9 experimental errorvariability between the panelist. This erro
37、r can be accounted for by using more than one panelist totest each sample.3.1.10 home use testing (HUT)refers to tests that allow respondents to use the products in a more natural environment, ratherthan the controlled environment.3.1.11 measurement errorrepeatability within the individual panelist.
38、 This error can be accounted for by having each panelisttest a particular sample more than once.3.1.12 monadic or single product testsproduct tests where only one product is experienced and rated.3.1.13 parity claimsparity claims are claims that rank equivalent levels of performance or liking when c
39、omparing a particularproduct to another product. In general, parity claims are made relative to a market/category leader. Within parity claims, twoadditional classes exist: equality claims and unsurpassed claims.3.1.14 pattern effectany pattern in order will be detected quickly.3.1.15 positional bia
40、srespondents may be more sensitive to differences in specific samples in a series, such as the first or lastsample.3.1.16 product variabilitybatch-to-batch variation. This error can be accounted for by testing multiple and representativebatches of a product.2 For referenced ASTM standards, visit the
41、 ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standardsvolume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page on the ASTM website.3 Available from ASTM International Headquarters, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohoc
42、ken, PA 19428-2959.E1958 1233.1.17 self-administered questionnairequestionnaires independently completed by the respondent are referred to as self-administered.3.1.18 superiority claimsa superiority claim is supported if a statistically significant proportion of the respondents prefer theadvertisers
43、 product.3.1.19 superiority claimssuperiority claims assert a higher level of performance or liking relative to another brand. Superiorityclaims can be opposed to competitive brands (for example, “cleans better than brand Z”) or opposed to an earlier formula of thebrand (for example, “now more clean
44、ing power than before”).3.1.20 unsurpassed claimsin unsurpassed claims, the claim stated indicates that the product(s) selected for comparison is notbetter/higher (or greater than) in some way to the target product(s) for which the analysis is executed.4. Basis of Claim Classification4.1 A fundament
45、al step in advertising claim substantiation is creating an explicit statement of the claim prior to actual testing.The statement is then forwarded to all parties concerned in the substantiation process. Concerned parties could include marketing,marketing research, legal, consumer testing, sensory ev
46、aluation, research suppliers, etc. The statement is essential as it canencourage collaboration in terms of corporate resources, confirms the selection of appropriate test methods, and has the potentialto maximize the chance of making reliable business decisions about the proposed claim, pending the
47、results of substantiationresearch. Collaboration among all involved parties prior to executing substantiation research is critical in achieving the best results.All involved parties should meet and agree (perhaps several times) prior to implementing the substantiation research.4.2 Familiarity with t
48、he general classification of advertising claims is important in developing clear statements of claims at anearly stage and for developing a rational plan for testing. This familiarity also facilitates the process of selecting appropriate testingmethods, among the many types of methods available to t
49、he consumer/sensory science professional. Each method answers specificquestions and may support one type of claim but not another. Therefore, the consumer/sensory science function provides animportant source of information and experience in claim substantiation and will provide much of the definition of testingmethodology. There are multiple ways to support claims depending on the characteristics of the claim. Two approaches areconsumer based and trained panel based evaluations.4.3 Advertising claims can be divided into two fundamental
