ASTM E1958-07
(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 ContentsSectionIntroductionScope1Referenced Documents2Terminology3Basis of Claim Classification4Consumer Based Affective Testing5Sampling5.1Sampling Techniques5.2Selection of Products5.3Sampling of Products When Both Products Are Currently on the Market5.4Handling of Products When Both Products Are Currently on the Market5.5Sampling of Products Not Yet on the Market5.6Sample Preparation/Test Protocol5.7Test Design-Consumer Testing6Data Collection Strategies6.6Interviewing Techniques6.7Type of Questions6.8Questionnaire Design6.9Instruction to Respondents6.10Instructions to Interviewers6.11General/Overall Questions6.12Positioning of the Key Product Rating Questions6.13Total Test Context and Presentation Matters6.14Specific Attribute Questions6.15Classification or Demographic Questions6.16Preference Questions6.17Test Location7Test Execution by Way of Test Agencies-Food and Non-Food Testing8Laboratory Testing Methods9Types of Tests9.2Advantages and Limitations of the Use of Trained Descriptive Panels in Claims Support Research9.3Test Design-Laboratory Testing10Product Procurement10.6Experimental Design10.7Data Collection10.8Data Analysis10.9Questionnaire Construction11Test Facility12Statistical Analysis13Paired-Preference Studies13.1Superiority Claims13.2Parity Claims13.3Paired Comparison/Difference Studies13.4Analysis of Data from Scales13.5Keywords14Commonly Asked Questions About ASTM and Claim SubstantiationAppendix X1
General Information
Relations
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: E 1958 – 07
Standard Guide for
1
Sensory Claim Substantiation
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 1958; 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 (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
INTRODUCTION
Formatsorstandardsfortestingrelatedtoclaimsubstantiationcannotbeconsideredwithoutaframe
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
inconsistenciesarefoundthroughcompetitivetestdata,theclaimscouldbechallengedinoneormore
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?” Unfortu-
nately, 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 reasonable than the competitor’s challenge.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
1
---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
E1958–07
1. Scope
Statistical Analysis 13
Paired-Preference Studies 13.1
1.1 Thisguidecoversreasonablepracticesfordesigningand
Superiority Claims 13.2
implementingsensoryteststhatvalidateclaimspertainingonly
Parity Claims 13.3
Paired Comparison/Difference Studies 13.4
to the sensory or perceptual attributes, or both, of a product.
Analysis of Data from Scales 13.5
ThisguidewasdevelopedforuseintheUnitedStatesandmust
Keywords 14
be adapted to the laws and regulations for advertisement claim Commonly Asked Questions About
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.