wanich-assessingfood-2018.pdf (1.72 MB)
Assessing food liking: comparison of food liking questionnaires and direct food tasting in two cultures
journal contribution
posted on 2018-12-01, 00:00 authored by Uracha Wanich, Dhoungsiri Sayompark, Lynn RiddellLynn Riddell, Sara Cicerale, Gie LiemGie Liem, Mohammadreza MohebbiMohammadreza Mohebbi, Susie MacfarlaneSusie Macfarlane, Russell KeastRussell KeastFood liking can be directly measured in specialised sensory testing facilities; however, this method is not feasible for large population samples. The aim of the study was to compare a Food Liking Questionnaire (FLQ) against lab-based sensory testing in two countries. The study was conducted with 70 Australian and Thai participants (35 Australian, 35 Thai, mean (SD) age 19 (3.01) years, 51% men). Participants completed a FLQ (consisting of 73 food items Australia, 89 Thai) and then, after tasting the food, rated their liking of a selection of 10 commercially available food items using a nine-point hedonic scale. Both tasks were completed on the same day and were repeated one week later. The reliability of and a comparison between methods was determined using Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and the difference was assessed using an independent sample t-test. The results indicate that the test-retest reliability of FLQ and the laboratory-based liking assessment range was moderate (0.40⁻0.59) to excellent (0.75⁻1.00). There were significant differences for the FLQ and the laboratory-based liking assessment between countries for three food items: soft drink, instant vegetable soup, and broccoli (p < 0.01). However, the data produced from the FLQ reflects the laboratory-based liking assessment. Therefore, it provides representative liking data in large population-based studies including cross-cultural studies.
History
Journal
NutrientsVolume
10Issue
12Pagination
1 - 11Publisher
MDPILocation
Basel, SwitzerlandPublisher DOI
Link to full text
eISSN
2072-6643Language
engPublication classification
C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journalCopyright notice
2018, the authorsUsage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedKeywords
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC