ASTM E1958-16
(Guide)Standard Guide for Sensory Claim Substantiation
Standard Guide for Sensory Claim Substantiation
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers reasonable practices for designing and implementing sensory tests that validate claims pertaining only to the sensory or perceptual attributes, or both, of a product. This guide was developed for use in the United States and must be adapted to the laws and regulations for advertisement claim substantiation for any other country. A claim is a statement about a product that highlights its advantages, sensory or perceptual attributes, or product changes or differences compared to other products in order to enhance its marketability. Attribute, performance, and hedonic claims, both comparative and non-comparative, are covered. This guide includes broad principles covering selecting and recruiting representative consumer samples, selecting and preparing products, constructing product rating forms, test execution, and statistical handling of data. The objective of this guide is to disseminate good sensory and consumer testing practices. Validation of claims should be made more defendable if the essence of this guide is followed.
Table of Contents
Section
Introduction
Scope
1
Referenced Documents
2
Terminology
3
Basis of Claim Classification
4
Consumer Based Affective Testing
5
Sampling
5.1
Sampling Techniques
5.2
Selection of Products
5.3
Sampling of Products When Both Products Are Currently on
the Market
5.4
Handling of Products When Both Products Are Currently on
the Market
5.5
Sampling of Products Not Yet on the Market
5.6
Sample Preparation/Test Protocol
5.7
Test Design—Consumer Testing
6
Data Collection Strategies
6.6
Interviewing Techniques
6.7
Type of Questions
6.8
Questionnaire Design
6.9
Instruction to Respondents
6.10
Instructions to Interviewers
6.11
General/Overall Questions
6.12
Positioning of the Key Product Rating Questions
6.13
Total Test Context and Presentation Matters
6.14
Specific Attribute Questions
6.15
Classification or Demographic Questions
6.16
Preference Questions
6.17
Test Location
7
Test Execution by Way of Test Agencies—Food and Non-Food
Testing
8
Documents to Retain in Sensory Claims Substantiation Research
9
Laboratory Testing Methods
10
Types of Tests
10.2
Advantages and Limitations of the Use of Trained Descriptive
Panels in Claims Support Research
10.3
Test Design—Laboratory Testing
11
Product Procurement
11.6
Experimental Design
11.7
Data Collection
11.8
Data Analysis
11.9
Questionnaire Construction
12
Test Facility
13
Statistical Analysis
14
Paired-Preference Studies
14.1
Superiority Claims
14.2
Parity Claims
14.3
Paired Comparison/Difference Studies
14.4
Analysis of Data from Scales
14.5
Keywords
15
Commonly Asked Questions About ASTM and Claim
Substantiation
Appendix X1
General Information
Relations
Buy Standard
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E1958 − 16
StandardGuide for
1
Sensory Claim Substantiation
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1958; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
INTRODUCTION
Formats or standards for testing related to claim substantiation cannot be considered without a
frame of reference of where that format or standard would fit within the legal framework that
surrounds the topic. Tests are performed for three basic reasons:
(1) Comparison of Products—Determines how one product compares to another, usually a competitor or earlier version of
itself.
(2) Substantiation of Claims—Enables marketing personnel to use positive references through advertising or packaging, or
both, in the presentation of the product to the consumer.
(3) Test Performance—Ascertains and establishes the tested product performance within the scope of its intended use.
Compelling and aggressive claims are sure to be scrutinized closely by competitive firms, and if inconsistencies are found
through competitive test data, the claims could be challenged in one or more of the following venues: (1) National Advertising
Division of the Council of the Better Business Bureau, Inc. (NAD), (2) National Advertising Review Board (NARB), (3) one or
more media, such as print, broadcast, or electronic media, (4) ConsumerAdvocacy Organizations, and (5) Civil or Federal courts.
No single test design or standard test will prevent challenges. The criteria used by each of the potential forums are not identical
and are constantly evolving. With the introduction of new technologies coupled with changing consumer demands, testing
processes and protocols that were sufficient five or ten years ago may not hold up under today’s criteria and scrutiny. Conversely,
it can only be speculated about the testing requirements of the future. The one constant is that, as advocates of their clients’
positions,attorneyswilldefendtheirclients’testingprocessesandprotocolwhilequestioningwithgreatdetaileveryaspectoftheir
competitor’s protocol in the attempt to sway the arbiter to agree that their clients are in the right.
This guide demonstrates what a group of professionals who are skilled in the science of testing consider reasonable, and
represents an effective method for both defendant and challenger to determine the viability of a claim. The keyword is
“reasonable.” If a particular aspect of a test is not reasonable for a specific application, it should not be used. Care should be taken
to clearly define the reasons and data supporting a deviation from the standard, as any departure invites scrutiny. Since departures
are inevitable, the word “should” is used in this guide to indicate when other techniques may have application in certain unusual
circumstances.Whenever a test protocol has been completed, it should be critiqued for weaknesses in reasonability. If weaknesses
are found, corrective action should be taken, since the competition may point out any weakness or discrepancy and challenge the
“reasonableness” of the study.
Withtheimportanceof“reasonableness,”thequestionremains,“Whatisreasonable?”Unfortunately,thereisnospecificanswer
to that question. The measure of “reasonable” depends on the company making the claim and its approach toward advertising.
Some companies are aggressive; others are conservative. It will depend on the nature of the claim and the status of the competitor,
the magnitude of the advertising campaign, and the frequency of the advertisement’s exposure. Market pressures (such as timing),
testing budgets, and the internal dynamics of a company’s marketing and legal/regulatory approval departments also affect the
interpretation of “reasonable.” Competition will consider most tests unreasonable; therefore, it is more important to focus on
whether the review board considers the test more reasonable than the competitor’s challenge.
1. Scope
1.1 Thisguidecoversreasonablepracticesfordesigningand
implementing sensory tests that validate claims pertaining only
1
to the sensory or perceptual attributes, or both, of a product.
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E18 on Sensory
Evaluationand is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E18.05 on Sensory
ThisguidewasdevelopedforuseintheUnitedStatesandmust
Applications--General.
be adapted to the laws and regulations for advertisement claim
Current edition approved Aug. 1, 2016. Published August 2016. Originally
substantiation for any other country. A claim is a statement
approved in 1998. Last previous edition approved in 2012 as E1958 – 12. DOI:
10.1520/E1958-16. about
...
This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation: E1958 − 12 E1958 − 16
Standard Guide for
1
Sensory Claim Substantiation
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1958; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
INTRODUCTION
Formats or standards for testing related to claim substantiation cannot be considered without a
frame of reference of where that format or standard would fit within the legal framework that
surrounds the topic. Tests are performed for three basic reasons:
(1) Comparison of Products—Determines how one product compares to another, usually a
competitor or earlier version of itself.
(1) Comparison of Products—Determines how one product compares to another, usually a competitor or earlier version of
itself.
(2) Substantiation of Claims—Enables marketing personnel to use positive references through advertising or packaging, or
both, in the presentation of the product to the consumer.
(3) Test Performance—Ascertains and establishes the tested product performance within the scope of its intended use.
(2) Substantiation of Claims—Enables marketing personnel to use positive references through advertising or packaging, or
both, in the presentation of the product to the consumer.
(3) Test Performance —Ascertains and establishes the tested product performance within the scope of its intended use.
Compelling and aggressive claims are sure to be scrutinized closely by competitive firms, and if inconsistencies are found
through competitive test data, the claims could be challenged in one or more of the following venues: (1) National Advertising
Division of the Council of the Better Business Bureau, Inc. (NAD), (2) National Advertising Review Board (NARB), (3) one or
more media, such as print, broadcast, or electronic media, (4) Consumer Advocacy Organizations, and (5) Civil or Federal courts.
No single test design or standard test will prevent challenges. The criteria used by each of the potential forums are not identical
and are constantly evolving. With the introduction of new technologies coupled with changing consumer demands, testing
processes and protocols that were sufficient five or ten years ago may not hold up under today’s criteria and scrutiny. Conversely,
it can only be speculated about the testing requirements of the future. The one constant is that, as advocates of their clients’
positions, attorneys will defend their clients’ testing processes and protocol while questioning with great detail every aspect of their
competitor’s protocol in the attempt to sway the arbiter to agree that their clients are in the right.
This guide demonstrates what a group of professionals who are skilled in the science of testing consider reasonable, and
represents an effective method for both defendant and challenger to determine the viability of a claim. The keyword is
“reasonable.” If a particular aspect of a test is not reasonable for a specific application, it should not be used. Care should be taken
to clearly define the reasons and data supporting a deviation from the standard, as any departure invites scrutiny. Since departures
are inevitable, the word “should” is used in this guide to indicate when other techniques may have application in certain unusual
circumstances. Whenever a test protocol has been completed, it should be critiqued for weaknesses in reasonability. If weaknesses
are found, corrective action should be taken, since the competition may point out any weakness or discrepancy and challenge the
“reasonableness” of the study.
With the importance of “reasonableness,” the question remains, “What is reasonable?” Unfortunately, there is no specific answer
to that question. The measure of “reasonable” depends on the company making the claim and its approach toward advertising.
Some companies are aggressive; others are conservative. It will depend on the nature of the claim and the status of the competitor,
the magnitude of the advertising campaign, and the frequency of the advertisement’s exposure. Market pressures (such as timing),
testing budgets, and the internal dynamics of a company’s marketing and legal/regulatory approval departments also affect the
interpretation of “reasonable.” Competition will consider most tests unreasonable; therefore, it is more important to focus on
whether the review board considers the test more reason
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.