Analysing sensory panel performance in a proficiency test using the PanelCheck software

  • Oliver Tomic
  • Giorgio Luciano
  • Asgeir Nilsen
  • Grethe Hyldig
  • Kirsten Lorensen
  • Tormod Næs
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper discusses statistical methods and a workflow strategy for comparing performance across multiple sensory panels that participated in a proficiency test (also referred to as inter laboratory test). Performance comparison and analysis are based on a data set collected from 26 sensory panels carrying out profiling on the same set of candy samples. The candy samples were produced according to an experimental design using design factors, such as sugar, and acid level. Because of the exceptionally large amount of data and the availability of multiple statistical and graphical tools in the PanelCheck software, a workflow is proposed that guides the user through the data analysis process. This allows practitioners and non-statisticians to get an overview over panel performances in a rapid manner without the need to be familiar with details on the statistical methods. Visualisation of data analysis results plays an important role as this provides a time saving and efficient way of screening and investigating sensory panel performances. Most of the statistical methods used in this paper are available in the open source software PanelCheck, which may be downloaded and used for free.

Keywords

Proficiency test Inter laboratory test Sensory profiling Performance visualisation PanelCheck 

References

  1. 1.
    Brockhoff P, Skovgaard I (1994) Modelling individual differences between assessors in a sensory evaluation. Food Qual Prefer 5:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Næs T (1990) Handling individual differences between assessors in sensory profiling. Food Qual Prefer 2:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dahl T, Tomic O, Wold JP, Næs T (2008) Some new tools for visualizing multi-way sensory data. Food Qual Prefer 19:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lê S, Pagès J, Husson F (2008) Methodology for the comparison of sensory profiles provided by several panels: application to a cross-cultural study. Food Qual Prefer 19:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tomic O, Nilsen A, Martens M, Næs T (2007) Visualization of sensory profiling data for performance monitoring. LWT-Food Sci Technol 40:262–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thompson M, Wood R (1993) The international harmonised protocol for the proficiency testing of (chemical) analytical laboratories. Pure Appl Chem 65:21–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McEwan JA (1999) Comparison of sensory panels: a ring trial. Food Qual Prefer 10:16–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunter EA, McEwan JA (1998) Evaluation of an International Ring Trial for sensory profiling of hard cheese. Food Qual Prefer 9:343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pagès J, Husson F (2001) Inter-laboratory comparison of sensory profiles methodology and results. Food Qual Prefer 12:297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    PanelCheck software (2006) Nofima Mat, Ås, Norway. http://www.panelcheck.com
  11. 11.
    Næs T, Langsrud Ø (1988) Fixed or random assessors in sensory profiling? Food Qual Prefer 9:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tucker LR (1964) The extension of factor analysis to three-dimensional matrices. In: Frederiksen N, Gulliksen H (eds) Contributions to mathematical psychology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tucker LR (1966) Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika 31:279–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Næs T, Solheim R (1991) Detection and interpretation of variation within and between assessors in sensory profiling. J Sens Stud 6:159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lea P, Rødbotten M, Næs T (1995) Measuring validity in sensory analysis. Food Qual Prefer 6:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Tomic
    • 1
  • Giorgio Luciano
    • 1
  • Asgeir Nilsen
    • 1
  • Grethe Hyldig
    • 2
  • Kirsten Lorensen
    • 3
  • Tormod Næs
    • 1
  1. 1.Nofima Mat ASÅsNorway
  2. 2.DTU Aqua, National Institute of Aquatic ResourcesTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.Chew Tech I/SVejleDenmark

Personalised recommendations