Sensory Report from Data Worksheet

No.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
WID
9005
9005
9005
9005
5258
5258
1329
1329
1329
6727
6727
4661
4661
4661
6528
6528
0771
0771
5163
5163
8225
8225
2713
2713
3946
3946
3946
9023
9023
1154
1154
Triangle
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Dual comparison
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
3-AFC
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
Paired comparison
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0=wrong answers
1=correct answers
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
1154
9062
9062
9062
9062
4392
4392
9026
9026
2228
2228
6211
6211
7932
7932
7617
7617
1487
1487
1487
1487
1412
1412
8711
8711
8711
5786
5786
5786
9422
9422
5452
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
5452
5452
8529
8529
8529
8529
1931
1931
1931
1931
1931
8605
8605
8023
8023
8023
8023
4975
4975
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
p(observed)
C – Correct Judgements
z-Value
Minimum number of correct judgements
D – # of discriminators
D/n(n=Total number of panelists)
Triangle
Dual Standard 3-AFC
Paired Comparison
40/82
54/82
54/82
62/82
40
54
54
62
2,8502
2,7607
6,1298
4,5276
35
48
35
48
19
26
40
42
19/82
26/82
40/82
42/82
p(chance)Chance probability
Also q = 1-p
Triangle
Dual Standard 3-AFC
1/3
1/2
1/3
0,6666667
0,5
0,6667
Paired Comparison
1/2
0,5
Note :
Z-value for all test is greater than the Z-critical value which says the two products are significantly different for a given test m
We can also note that C – correct judgments is greater than the minimum number of correct judgments for all 3 tests which s
P*N
C-P*N
C-P*N/Q
27,33
12,67
19
41
13
26
27,33
26,67
40
41
21
42
dgments for all 3 tests which shows that the panelists were able to differentiate between the products and that they are significantly diff
d that they are significantly different.
Lab 2 – Comparison of Discrimination Test Methods
Notes: Students are responsible for preparing and conducting the tests, then entering data into a shared
excel worksheet. For this lab, you’ll work as both an experimenter and an evaluator. (You may have
somebody else set up the tests for you so that you can do the evaluation). Each student needs to upload
at least TWO subjects’ data (including data from yourself). Please take photos of your lab set ups and
include them in your lab report.
• Data Upload Due: 11:59 PM CST 10/05/2023
• Report Due: 11:59 PM CST 10/12/2023
Instructions
For this lab, you will have to closely follow the instructions in the lab manuals (page 27) to conduct 4
discrimination tests: Triangle, Dual Standard, 3-AFC, and Paired Comparison (or 2-AFC).
Below are some key things.
•
Materials
o Kool-aid Black Cherry Drink Mix Unsweetened 0.13 oz. Packet (2 packets)
o Sucrose/ Commercial sugar
o Distilled water/ Any odorless water
o 1 oz. plastic cups (24 cups)
o Rinsing cups (2 cups) and spitting cups (2 cups)
o Napkins and unsalted saltine crackers
•
Equipment
o Label gun or other means (blank labels-hand writing) of affixing 3-digit random code
labels to cups.
o Balance for weighing sucrose
o Serving tray (optional)
•
Preparation Procedures
o Prepare two test solutions with different level of added sucrose
▪ Dissolve one sachet of Kool-aid in about 1.5 L of water and add 180 g sugar. Stir
until dissolved and add water to achieve a final total volume of 2 L. Final
concentration = 9 % wt/vol.
▪ Dissolve one sachet of Kool-aid in 1.5 L of water and add 200 g sugar. Stir until
dissolved and add water to achieve a final total volume of 2 L. Final
concentration = 10 % wt/vol.
o For each evaluator, 12 cups (1 oz. cup) of solutions are needed for the four sets of tests.
The suggested sample codes and the corresponding products are shown in the table
below.
1
Sample Code Test product
Triangle Test ( give any three, ask to choose which one is different, see sample ballots in lab manuals)
469
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
642
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
849
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
703
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
Dual Standard Test (ask to match to reference, see sample ballots in lab manuals )
Ref A
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
811
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
Ref B
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
837
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
3-AFC (ask to choose which one is sweetest, see sample ballot in lab manuals)
679
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
995
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
685
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
2-AFC (ask to choose which one is sweeter, see sample ballot in lab manuals)
824
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
762
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
• Evaluation
For each evaluator:
o Perform tests as instructed on the individual ballots (you can find the ballots on page 31
of lab manual) in the following order: Triangle, dual standard, 3-AFC and paired
comparison (2-AFC).
o
Do one test at a time. You may instruct the evaluator to have 1 minute break for palate
cleansing between tests.
• Data Collection and Report
o Data Upload: go to Canvas-Module- Lab 2- Lab 2 Data Upload, to find the shared file link
o Report: you’ll need to write an industrial report for this lab. Please follow the guidelines
in your lab exercise book (page 27).
2
LAB manual reporting (guidelines on report generation) Page 28 & 29:
Sample report from lab manual:
Sample Student report:
Mr/Ms …. to Mr/Ms ….
10/05/2021
Comparison of Discrimination Methods
From: Mr/Ms……, Sensory Scientist
To: Mr/Ms……, R & D Manager
Date: Oct 05, 2021
Background
Consumers are looking for low-calorie beverages because added sugar in beverages has become a
health concern. The goal of this study was to see if a 10% reduction in the sugar level of our purplestuff
drink mix made a noticeable difference in taste. The relative sensitivity of different testing methods was
a secondary question.
Conclusions:
The panelists were able to identify the sugar reduction in the beverage. Paired comparison and 3 AFC
tests were more sensitive compared to the dual standard and triangle test.
Z-value for all tests are greater than the Z-critical value which says, two products are significantly
different for a given test method.
We can also note that C – correct judgments is greater than the minimum number of correct judgments
for all 3 tests which shows that the panelists were able to differentiate between the products and that
they are significantly different.
Recommendations
The reduced-level formula should be tested for consumer acceptance.
The sweetness levels can be increased using other sweeteners to bridge the gap.
Samples
Sample Code Test product
Triangle Test – choose which one is different out of three samples
642
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
849
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
703
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
Dual Standard Test (match to reference samples)
Ref A
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
811
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
Ref B
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
837
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
3-AFC – choose which one is sweetest
679
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
995
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
685
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
2-AFC / Paired comparison – choose which one is sweeter
824
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
762
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
Test Methods
Null Hypothesis
Alt Hypothesis
Triangle
p=1/3
p>1/3
Duo-trio
p=1/2
p>1/2
Paired Comparison
p=1/2
p>1/2
Rated Difference
9% = 10%
9% ≠ 10%
Results:
p(observed)
C – Correct Judgements
z-Value
Minimum number of correct
judgements
D – # of discriminators
D/n(n=Total number of panelists)
p(chance)
Also q = 1-p
Triangle
40/82
40
2.8502
35
Dual Standard
54/82
54
2.7607
48
3-AFC
54/82
54
6.1298
35
Paired Comparison
62/82
62
4.5276
48
19
19/82
26
26/82
40
40/82
42
42/82
Triangle
1/3
0.666667
Dual Standard
1/2
0.5
3-AFC
Paired Comparison
1/3
1/2
0.666667 0.5
Panelists
82 employee volunteers from the general taste testing pool (untrained).
Date of work Request: Sep. 27, 2021
Date Conducted: Oct. 01, 2021
No.
WID
Triangle
Dual comparison
3-AFC
Paired comparison
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7691
7691
8705
8705
3850
3850
3776
3776
3776
4590
4590
2276
2276
7227
8287
8287
4689
4689
3781
3781
7137
7137
2786
2786
1836
1836
9896
9896
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
3449
3449
6141
6141
5188
5188
6898
6898
5512
5512
5602
5602
8849
8849
5314
5314
5314
0594
0594
0594
0844
0844
0844
1522
1522
5785
5785
5785
4258
4258
4258
9475
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
9475
2454
2454
5195
5195
5195
1426
1426
3041
3041
3041
3228
3228
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0=wrong answers
1=correct answers
Summary table
p(observed)
C – Correct Judgements
z-Value
Minimum number of correct judgements
D – # of discriminators
D/n(n=Total number of panelists)
p(chance)Chance probability
Also q = 1-p
I have done it for the Triangle test for your reference. Try doing it for other tests
Solving the equation for finding the Z value:
For Triangle test calculating Z value=
Z=
Note:
Solving the equation for finding the D=
For Triangle test calculating D (# of discriminators)=
D=
Summary table
Triangle
38/73
38
3,26904326
31
21
21/73
Triangle
1/3
0,66667
ur reference. Try doing it for other tests
(38-(73*(1/3))-.5)/(SQRT(73*(1/3)*(1-(1/3))))
3,269043
You’ll compare the calculated z-value to the critical z-value (1.645). If
it’s higher than the critical z-value (1.645) then the two products are
significantly different for a given test method or you can compare the
C with the “minimum no of correct judgments” from the table in the
appendix. If C is higher than the minimum number of correct
judgements, it means panelists were able to differentiate between the
products and that they are significantly different.
(C – p*n)/(1-p), where p = p(chance) provided for each test method
(38-(1/3)*73)/(1-1/3)
21
Dual Standard
3-AFC
Dual Standard 3-AFC
1/2
1/3
0,50000
0,66667
For Data analysis:
Paired Comparison
p (observed) = # of correct answers/total # of panelists = (C/n)
C = # of correct answers
Z-value = You should be using the formula provided in the lab manual (p
Z-value is for statistical analysis. You’ll compare the calculated z-value to
Z-value can be used to see how far your result is from the mean value
Paired Comparison
1/2
0,50000
Minimum number of correct judgements = the table provided in the sta
D = number of discriminators = (C – p*n)/(1-p), where p = p(chance) prov
D/n = Estimated proportion of discriminators
If D is negative or equal to 0, then D/n also becomes 0.
e calculated z-value to the critical z-value (1.645). If it’s higher than the critical z-value (1.645) then the two products are signif
ble provided in the statistical appendix; look for tabled value based on “n” and probability level of 0.05 (“Discrimination testing
n the two products are significantly different for a given test method or you can compare the C with the “minimum no of corre
th the “minimum no of correct judgments” from the table in the appendix. If C is higher than the minimum number of correct
minimum number of correct judgements, it means panelists were able to differentiate between the products and that they are
e products and that they are significantly different.
LAB manual reporting (guidelines on report generation) Page 28 & 29:
Sample report from lab manual:
Sample Student report:
Mr/Ms …. to Mr/Ms ….
10/05/2021
Comparison of Discrimination Methods
From: Mr/Ms……, Sensory Scientist
To: Mr/Ms……, R & D Manager
Date: Oct 05, 2021
Background
Consumers are looking for low-calorie beverages because added sugar in beverages has become a
health concern. The goal of this study was to see if a 10% reduction in the sugar level of our purplestuff
drink mix made a noticeable difference in taste. The relative sensitivity of different testing methods was
a secondary question.
Conclusions:
The panelists were able to identify the sugar reduction in the beverage. Paired comparison and 3 AFC
tests were more sensitive compared to the dual standard and triangle test.
Z-value for all tests are greater than the Z-critical value which says, two products are significantly
different for a given test method.
We can also note that C – correct judgments is greater than the minimum number of correct judgments
for all 3 tests which shows that the panelists were able to differentiate between the products and that
they are significantly different.
Recommendations
The reduced-level formula should be tested for consumer acceptance.
The sweetness levels can be increased using other sweeteners to bridge the gap.
Samples
Sample Code Test product
Triangle Test – choose which one is different out of three samples
642
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
849
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
703
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
Dual Standard Test (match to reference samples)
Ref A
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
811
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
Ref B
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
837
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
3-AFC – choose which one is sweetest
679
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
995
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
685
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
2-AFC / Paired comparison – choose which one is sweeter
824
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
762
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
Test Methods
Null Hypothesis
Alt Hypothesis
Triangle
p=1/3
p>1/3
Duo-trio
p=1/2
p>1/2
Paired Comparison
p=1/2
p>1/2
Rated Difference
9% = 10%
9% ≠ 10%
Results:
p(observed)
C – Correct Judgements
z-Value
Minimum number of correct
judgements
D – # of discriminators
D/n(n=Total number of panelists)
p(chance)
Also q = 1-p
Triangle
40/82
40
2.8502
35
Dual Standard
54/82
54
2.7607
48
3-AFC
54/82
54
6.1298
35
Paired Comparison
62/82
62
4.5276
48
19
19/82
26
26/82
40
40/82
42
42/82
Triangle
1/3
0.666667
Dual Standard
1/2
0.5
3-AFC
Paired Comparison
1/3
1/2
0.666667 0.5
Panelists
82 employee volunteers from the general taste testing pool (untrained).
Date of work Request: Sep. 27, 2021
Date Conducted: Oct. 01, 2021
LAB manual reporting (guidelines on report generation) Page 28 & 29:
Sample report from lab manual:
Sample Student report:
Mr/Ms …. to Mr/Ms ….
10/05/2021
Comparison of Discrimination Methods
From: Mr/Ms……, Sensory Scientist
To: Mr/Ms……, R & D Manager
Date: Oct 05, 2021
Background
Consumers are looking for low-calorie beverages because added sugar in beverages has become a
health concern. The goal of this study was to see if a 10% reduction in the sugar level of our purplestuff
drink mix made a noticeable difference in taste. The relative sensitivity of different testing methods was
a secondary question.
Conclusions:
The panelists were able to identify the sugar reduction in the beverage. Paired comparison and 3 AFC
tests were more sensitive compared to the dual standard and triangle test.
Z-value for all tests are greater than the Z-critical value which says, two products are significantly
different for a given test method.
We can also note that C – correct judgments is greater than the minimum number of correct judgments
for all 3 tests which shows that the panelists were able to differentiate between the products and that
they are significantly different.
Recommendations
The reduced-level formula should be tested for consumer acceptance.
The sweetness levels can be increased using other sweeteners to bridge the gap.
Samples
Sample Code Test product
Triangle Test – choose which one is different out of three samples
642
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
849
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
703
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
Dual Standard Test (match to reference samples)
Ref A
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
811
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
Ref B
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
837
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
3-AFC – choose which one is sweetest
679
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
995
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
685
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
2-AFC / Paired comparison – choose which one is sweeter
824
Powdered drink mix at 9% sucrose wt/vol
762
Powdered drink mix at 10% sucrose wt/vol
Test Methods
Null Hypothesis
Alt Hypothesis
Triangle
p=1/3
p>1/3
Duo-trio
p=1/2
p>1/2
Paired Comparison
p=1/2
p>1/2
Rated Difference
9% = 10%
9% ≠ 10%
Results:
p(observed)
C – Correct Judgements
z-Value
Minimum number of correct
judgements
D – # of discriminators
D/n(n=Total number of panelists)
p(chance)
Also q = 1-p
Triangle
40/82
40
2.8502
35
Dual Standard
54/82
54
2.7607
48
3-AFC
54/82
54
6.1298
35
Paired Comparison
62/82
62
4.5276
48
19
19/82
26
26/82
40
40/82
42
42/82
Triangle
1/3
0.666667
Dual Standard
1/2
0.5
3-AFC
Paired Comparison
1/3
1/2
0.666667 0.5
Panelists
82 employee volunteers from the general taste testing pool (untrained).
Date of work Request: Sep. 27, 2021
Date Conducted: Oct. 01, 2021
No.
WID
Triangle
Dual comparison
3-AFC
Paired comparison
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7691
7691
8705
8705
3850
3850
3776
3776
3776
4590
4590
2276
2276
7227
8287
8287
4689
4689
3781
3781
7137
7137
2786
2786
1836
1836
9896
9896
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
3449
3449
6141
6141
5188
5188
6898
6898
5512
5512
5602
5602
8849
8849
5314
5314
5314
0594
0594
0594
0844
0844
0844
1522
1522
5785
5785
5785
4258
4258
4258
9475
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
9475
2454
2454
5195
5195
5195
1426
1426
3041
3041
3041
3228
3228
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0=wrong answers
1=correct answers
Summary table
p(observed)
C – Correct Judgements
z-Value
Minimum number of correct judgements
D – # of discriminators
D/n(n=Total number of panelists)
p(chance)Chance probability
Also q = 1-p
I have done it for the Triangle test for your reference. Try doing it for other tests
Solving the equation for finding the Z value:
For Triangle test calculating Z value=
Z=
Note:
Solving the equation for finding the D=
For Triangle test calculating D (# of discriminators)=
D=
Summary table
Triangle
38/73
38
3.26904326
31
21
21/73
Triangle
1/3
0.66667
ur reference. Try doing it for other tests
(38-(73*(1/3))-.5)/(SQRT(73*(1/3)*(1-(1/3))))
3.269043
You’ll compare the calculated z-value to the critical z-value (1.645). If
it’s higher than the critical z-value (1.645) then the two products are
significantly different for a given test method or you can compare the
C with the “minimum no of correct judgments” from the table in the
appendix. If C is higher than the minimum number of correct
judgements, it means panelists were able to differentiate between the
products and that they are significantly different.
(C – p*n)/(1-p), where p = p(chance) provided for each test method
(38-(1/3)*73)/(1-1/3)
21
Dual Standard
3-AFC
Dual Standard 3-AFC
1/2
1/3
0.50000
0.66667
For Data analysis:
Paired Comparison
p (observed) = # of correct answers/total # of panelists = (C/n)
C = # of correct answers
Z-value = You should be using the formula provided in the lab manual (p
Z-value is for statistical analysis. You’ll compare the calculated z-value to
Z-value can be used to see how far your result is from the mean value
Paired Comparison
1/2
0.50000
Minimum number of correct judgements = the table provided in the sta
D = number of discriminators = (C – p*n)/(1-p), where p = p(chance) prov
D/n = Estimated proportion of discriminators
If D is negative or equal to 0, then D/n also becomes 0.
e calculated z-value to the critical z-value (1.645). If it’s higher than the critical z-value (1.645) then the two products are signif
ble provided in the statistical appendix; look for tabled value based on “n” and probability level of 0.05 (“Discrimination testing
n the two products are significantly different for a given test method or you can compare the C with the “minimum no of corre
th the “minimum no of correct judgments” from the table in the appendix. If C is higher than the minimum number of correct
minimum number of correct judgements, it means panelists were able to differentiate between the products and that they are
e products and that they are significantly different.