4.6 Article

Interpretation, validation and segmentation of preference mapping models

期刊

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 198-209

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.002

关键词

Individual differences; Preference mapping; ANOVA; PCA; PLS-DA; Validation

资金

  1. Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy [AP 2010/2011]
  2. ConsumerCheck project
  3. National Research Council of Norway
  4. Norwegian food industry
  5. Food Choice project
  6. Agricultural Food Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper we discuss an extension to preference mapping of the method proposed in [Endrizzi, I., Menichelli, E., Johansen, S. B., Olsen, N. V., & Ns, T. (2011). Handling of individual differences in rating-based conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 22,241-254] for accommodating both population averages and individual differences in the same model. The method, based on average estimates and residuals, is a combination of ANOVA, PCA and PLS-DA, which are well-known techniques that can be run in almost all statistical software packages. Main attention is given to the relation between the double-centred residual matrix which highlights differences between consumers in their relative position as compared to the average consumer values and the standard centring in preference mapping. This approach has been found particularly useful for highlighting differences in preference pattern among the consumers. Furthermore, the interpretation and the segmentation, that is here taking place based on differences in acceptance pattern, are graphically oriented. In addition, some possible alternatives to the generally used validation method in PCA are suggested. The approach is then illustrated using two data-sets from consumer studies of apple and raspberry juice, showing that when individual differences are analysed by the present method, interesting results regarding individual differences in response pattern are detected. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据