1、Designation: E1958 16aStandard 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 indi
2、cates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.INTRODUCTIONFormats or standards for testing related to sensory claim substantiation cannot be consideredwithout a frame of reference of where that format or standard would
3、fit within the legal frameworkthat surrounds the topic. Product sensory claims tests are performed for three basic reasons: (1)Comparison of ProductsDetermines how one product compares to another, usually a competitor orearlier version of itself. (2) Substantiation of ClaimsEnables marketing personn
4、el to use positivereferences through advertising or packaging, or both, in the presentation of the product to theconsumer. (3) Test PerformanceAscertains and establishes the tested product performance withinthe scope of its intended use.The risk associated with each claim is assessed when considerin
5、g claims substantiation. Compellingand aggressive claims are sure to be scrutinized closely by competitive firms, and if inconsistenciesare found through competitive test data, the claims could be challenged in one or more of thefollowing venues: (1) National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Advert
6、ising Self-RegulatoryCouncil (ASRC), (2) one or more media, such as print, broadcast, or electronic media, (3) ConsumerAdvocacy Organizations, and (4) Civil or Federal courts. No single test design or standard test willprevent challenges. The criteria used by each of the potential forums are not ide
7、ntical and areconstantly evolving. With the introduction of new technologies coupled with changing consumerdemands, testing processes and protocols that were sufficient five or ten years ago may not hold upunder todays criteria and scrutiny. Testing requirements of the future can only be a matter fo
8、rspeculation. The one constant is that, as advocates of their clientspositions, attorneys will defend theirclients testing 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 ri
9、ght. Legalcounsel should be part of any team developing claim substantiation.This guide demonstrates what a group of professionals who are skilled in the science of testingconsider appropriate from a scientific and technical standpoint, and represents an effective method forboth defendant and challe
10、nger to determine the viability of a sensory claim. The key word is“appropriate.” If a particular aspect of a test, or method, is not appropriate for a specific application,it should not be used. Care should be taken to clearly define the reasons and data supporting adeviation from the standard, as
11、any departure invites scrutiny. Since departures are inevitable, theword “should” is used in this guide to indicate when other techniques may have applications in certainunusual circumstances. Whenever a test protocol has been completed, it should be critiqued forweaknesses, including whether expert
12、s in the relevant field would consider the research objectivelydesigned, conducted, and analyzed, using procedures that give accurate and reliable results. Ifweaknesses are found, corrective action should be taken, since the competition may point out anyweakness or discrepancy and challenge the stud
13、y.While the scientific and technical community identifies the appropriateness of a research methodused to support a sensory claim, the legal community evaluates substantiation for legal claims using“reasonableness” as the criterion. With the importance of having a legal “reasonable basis” for a clai
14、m,the question remains, “What is reasonable?” Unfortunately, there is no specific answer to that legalquestion, as it will depend on the type of claim, product application and use, applicable regulationswhere the product is sold, and other factors. These considerations, market pressures (such as tim
15、ing),and testing budgets can influence and impact the protocols to support a specific claim. This guideprovides principles and considerations that need to be addressed for good sensory and consumertesting practices.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken,
16、PA 19428-2959. United States11. 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 t
17、he 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, p
18、erformance, 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 d
19、ata. 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 4Consu
20、mer 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 Pro
21、tocol 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 Con
22、text 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 Research 9Laboratory Testing Meth
23、ods 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 12Test Facility 13Statistical Ana
24、lysis 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 Standards:2E253 Terminology Relati
25、ng 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 Methods: Second EditionSTP 913
26、 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 more specific attributes differ
27、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 assign each test sample an intensi
28、ty 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 relative intensity of that attribute
29、. 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 sufficient amount of scaleavai
30、lable 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 and is less prone to outlier in
31、flu-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 provides his or her1This guid
32、e is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E18 on SensoryEvaluationand is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E18.05 on SensoryApplications-General.Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2016. Published October 2016. Originallyapproved in 1998. Last previous edition approved in 2016 as E1958 16.
33、DOI:10.1520/E1958-16A.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.3Available from ASTM International Head
34、quarters, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, POBox C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.E1958 16a2own 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 ba
35、sis 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
36、method 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 claimsi
37、n equality 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 u
38、se the 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 tes
39、ts whereonly 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 a
40、dditional 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-b
41、atch 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
42、a statistically 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
43、”) or 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 wh
44、ich 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 coul
45、dinclude 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
46、makingreliable 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) pri
47、or to 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-pr
48、iate 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 andexperien
49、ce in 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 fundamentalclassifications: 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 comp
