ASTM E1958-18
(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
1.2 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
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 − 18
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 sensory 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. Product sensory claims 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.
Theriskassociatedwitheachclaimisassessedwhenconsideringclaimssubstantiation.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 (NAD) of the Advertising Self-Regulatory
Council (ASRC), (2) one or more media, such as print, broadcast, or electronic media, (3) Consumer
Advocacy Organizations, and (4) 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. Testing requirements of the future can only be a matter for
speculation.Theoneconstantisthat,asadvocatesoftheirclients’positions,attorneyswilldefendtheir
clients’ testing processes and protocol while questioning with great detail every aspect of their
competitor’sprotocolintheattempttoswaythearbitertoagreethattheirclientsareintheright.Legal
counsel should be part of any team developing claim substantiation.
This guide demonstrates what a group of professionals who are skilled in the science of testing
consider appropriate from a scientific and technical standpoint, and represents an effective method for
both defendant and challenger to determine the viability of a sensory claim. The key word is
“appropriate.” If a particular aspect of a test, or method, is not appropriate 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”isusedinthisguidetoindicate whenother techniques may have applications incertain
unusual circumstances. Whenever a test protocol has been completed, it should be critiqued for
weaknesses, including whether experts in the relevant field would consider the research objectively
designed, conducted, and analyzed, using procedures that give accurate and reliable results. If
weaknesses are found, corrective action should be taken, since the competition may point out any
weakness or discrepancy and challenge the study.
While the scientific and technical community identifies the appropriateness of a research method
used to support a sensory claim, the legal community evaluates substantiation for legal claims using
“reasonableness”asthecriterion.Withtheimportanceofhavingalegal“reasonablebasis”foraclaim,
the question remains, “What is reasonable?” Unfortunately, there is no specific answer to that legal
question, as it will depend on the type of claim, product application and use, applicable regulations
where the product is sold, and other factors. These considerations, market pressures (such as timing),
and testing budgets can influence and impact the protocols to support a specific claim. This guide
provides principles and considerations that need to be addressed for good sensory and consumer
testing practices.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
1
---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
E1958 − 18
1. Scope
Questionnaire Construction 12
Test Facility 13
1.1 Thisguidecoversreasonablepracticesfordesigningand
Statistical Analysis 14
implementing sensory tests that validate claims pertaining only Paired-Preference Studies 14.1
Superiority Claims 14.2
to t
...
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 − 16a E1958 − 18
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 sensory 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. Product sensory claims 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.
The risk associated with each claim is assessed when considering claims substantiation. 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 (NAD) of the Advertising Self-Regulatory
Council (ASRC), (2) one or more media, such as print, broadcast, or electronic media, (3) Consumer
Advocacy Organizations, and (4) 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. Testing requirements of the future can only be a matter for
speculation. 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. Legal
counsel should be part of any team developing claim substantiation.
This guide demonstrates what a group of professionals who are skilled in the science of testing
consider appropriate from a scientific and technical standpoint, and represents an effective method for
both defendant and challenger to determine the viability of a sensory claim. The key word is
“appropriate.” If a particular aspect of a test, or method, is not appropriate 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 applications in certain
unusual circumstances. Whenever a test protocol has been completed, it should be critiqued for
weaknesses, including whether experts in the relevant field would consider the research objectively
designed, conducted, and analyzed, using procedures that give accurate and reliable results. If
weaknesses are found, corrective action should be taken, since the competition may point out any
weakness or discrepancy and challenge the study.
While the scientific and technical community identifies the appropriateness of a research method
used to support a sensory claim, the legal community evaluates substantiation for legal claims using
“reasonableness” as the criterion. With the importance of having a legal “reasonable basis” for a claim,
the question remains, “What is reasonable?” Unfortunately, there is no specific answer to that legal
1
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E18 on Sensory Evaluation and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E18.05 on Sensory
Applications--General.
Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2016June 1, 2018. Published October 2016July 2018. Originally approved in 1998. Last previous edition approved in 2016 as
E1958 – 16.E1958 – 16a. DOI: 10.1520/E1958-16A.10.1520/E1958-18.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Unit
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.