1、Designation: E1958 16Standard 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 parentheses indic
2、ates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.INTRODUCTIONFormats or standards for testing related to claim substantiation cannot be considered without aframe of reference of where that format or standard would fit withi
3、n the legal framework thatsurrounds the topic. Tests are performed for three basic reasons:(1) Comparison of ProductsDetermines how one product compares to another, usually a competitor or earlier version ofitself.(2) Substantiation of ClaimsEnables marketing personnel to use positive references thr
4、ough advertising or packaging, orboth, in the presentation of the product to the consumer.(3) Test PerformanceAscertains and establishes the tested product performance within the scope of its intended use.Compelling and aggressive claims are sure to be scrutinized closely by competitive firms, and i
5、f inconsistencies are foundthrough competitive test data, the claims could be challenged in one or more of the following venues: (1) National AdvertisingDivision of the Council of the Better Business Bureau, Inc. (NAD), (2) National Advertising Review Board (NARB), (3) one ormore media, such as prin
6、t, broadcast, or electronic media, (4) Consumer Advocacy Organizations, and (5) Civil or Federal courts.No single test design or standard test will prevent challenges. The criteria used by each of the potential forums are not identicaland are constantly evolving. With the introduction of new technol
7、ogies coupled with changing consumer demands, testingprocesses and protocols that were sufficient five or ten years ago may not hold up under todays criteria and scrutiny. Conversely,it can only be speculated about the testing requirements of the future. The one constant is that, as advocates of the
8、ir clientspositions, attorneys will defend their clientstesting processes and protocol while questioning with great detail every aspect of theircompetitors protocol in the attempt to sway the arbiter to agree that their clients are in the right.This guide demonstrates what a group of professionals w
9、ho are skilled in the science of testing consider reasonable, andrepresents an effective method for both defendant and challenger to determine the viability of a claim. The keyword is“reasonable.” If a particular aspect of a test is not reasonable for a specific application, it should not be used. C
10、are should be takento clearly define the reasons and data supporting a deviation from the standard, as any departure invites scrutiny. Since departuresare inevitable, the word “should” is used in this guide to indicate when other techniques may have application in certain unusualcircumstances. Whene
11、ver a test protocol has been completed, it should be critiqued for weaknesses in reasonability. If weaknessesare found, corrective action should be taken, since the competition may point out any weakness or discrepancy and challenge the“reasonableness” of the study.With the importance of “reasonable
12、ness,” the question remains, “What is reasonable?” Unfortunately, there is no specific answerto that question. The measure of “reasonable” depends on the company making the claim and its approach toward advertising.Some companies are aggressive; others are conservative. It will depend on the nature
13、of the claim and the status of the competitor,the magnitude of the advertising campaign, and the frequency of the advertisements exposure. Market pressures (such as timing),testing budgets, and the internal dynamics of a companys marketing and legal/regulatory approval departments also affect theint
14、erpretation of “reasonable.” Competition will consider most tests unreasonable; therefore, it is more important to focus onwhether the review board considers the test more reasonable than the competitors challenge.1. Scope1.1 This guide covers reasonable practices for designing andimplementing senso
15、ry 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 laws and regulations for advertisement claimsubstantiation for any other country. A claim is a statementabout a
16、product that highlights its advantages, sensory or1This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E18 on SensoryEvaluationand is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E18.05 on SensoryApplications-General.Current edition approved Aug. 1, 2016. Published August 2016. Originallyapproved in
17、 1998. Last previous edition approved in 2012 as E1958 12. DOI:10.1520/E1958-16.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States1perceptual attributes, or product changes or differences com-pared to other products in order to enhance i
18、ts 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 forms, test execution, a
19、nd 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 2Terminology 3Basis o
20、f 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 Not Yet on the Market 5
21、.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 the Key Product Rating
22、 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-FoodTesting8Documents to Retain in Sensory Claims Substantiation Rese
23、arch 9Laboratory Testing Methods 10Types of Tests 10.2Advantages and Limitations of the Use of Trained DescriptivePanels in Claims Support Research10.3Test DesignLaboratory Testing 11Product Procurement 11.6Experimental Design 11.7Data Collection 11.8Data Analysis 11.9Questionnaire Construction 12Te
24、st Facility 13Statistical Analysis 14Paired-Preference Studies 14.1Superiority Claims 14.2Parity Claims 14.3Paired Comparison/Difference Studies 14.4Analysis of Data from Scales 14.5Keywords 15Commonly Asked Questions About ASTM and ClaimSubstantiationAppendix X12. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Stand
25、ards:2E253 Terminology Relating to Sensory Evaluation of Mate-rials and ProductsE1885 Test Method for Sensory AnalysisTriangle TestE2164 Test Method for Directional Difference Test2.2 ASTM Publications:3ASTM Manual 13 Descriptive Analysis Testing for SensoryEvaluationASTM Manual 26 Sensory Testing M
26、ethods: Second EditionSTP 913 Physical Requirement Guidelines for SensoryEvaluation Laboratories3. Terminology3.1 DefinitionsTerms used in this guide are in accordancewith Terminology E253. Additional terms are as follows:3.1.1 attribute difference rating testthis test also deter-mines if one or mor
27、e specific attributes differ between twosamples. 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 assig
28、n each test sample an intensity to reflect 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 relativ
29、e intensity of that attribute. It is notnecessary to evaluate every occurring attribute, only theattributes being addressed in the claim.3.1.3 ceiling effectsthis typically occurs when the majorityof the scores occur toward the top of a rating scale. When theproducts are well-liked, there is not a s
30、ufficient amount of scaleavailable to the respondents to differentiate the products.Variation 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 an
31、d 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-ally evaluated the product in question and
32、provides his or herown opinion immediately following evaluation, rather thanrelying on past usage or recollection of a CLT.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, re
33、fer 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.E1958 1623.1.5 comparative claimsdesigned to compare similaritiesand differences between two or more products. The basis
34、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/texture of one samplecan have an influence on the perceived flavor/texture of eachsubsequent sample.3.1.7 directional difference testthis test meth
35、od is usedwhen determining 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 eq
36、uality claims, two products 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 t
37、he products in a more natural 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 w
38、hereonly one product is experienced 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 addit
39、ional classes exist: equality 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
40、 variation. Thiserror can 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 st
41、atistically significant proportion of the respondents preferthe advertisers product.3.1.19 superiority claimssuperiority claims assert a higherlevel of performance or liking relative to another brand.Superiority claims can be opposed to competitive brands (forexample, “cleans better than brand Z”) o
42、r opposed to an earlierformula 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
43、the analysis is executed.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 couldinc
44、lude marketing, marketing 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 maki
45、ngreliable business decisions 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 t
46、o implementingthe substantiation 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
47、 testing methods, among the 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 i
48、n claim substantiation and 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 fundamental
49、classifications: Comparative 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 fur
