Equivalence and non-inferiority tests using replicated discrimination and preference data

IF 1.6 3区 农林科学 Q3 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Michael Meyners, B. Thomas Carr, Joachim Kunert
{"title":"Equivalence and non-inferiority tests using replicated discrimination and preference data","authors":"Michael Meyners,&nbsp;B. Thomas Carr,&nbsp;Joachim Kunert","doi":"10.1111/joss.12882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>Using replications in discrimination tests is becoming more common in times of strict budgetary and time constraints. For the proof of differences, it is well-known that the standard binomial test can be used. However, it is no longer applicable if the objective is to show equivalence or non-inferiority, as potential differences among assessors (assessor heterogeneity/overdispersion) might invalidate the binomial test. We reapply ideas described earlier for the development of a confidence interval to derive a direct asymptotic test for equivalence or non-inferiority using replicated discrimination and preference data, both for the cases of equal and unequal numbers of replications among assessors. The suggested test is largely model-free, that is, does not require any assumptions that cannot be easily warranted by the test design and execution. At the same time, implementation is surprisingly easy by using the R code provided or any simple spreadsheet editor, or even manually.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Practical Applications</h3>\n \n <p>Showing equivalence in perception between stimuli becomes increasingly important in applications, for example, in cost-savings or product-matching. The suggested approach is statistically valid without potentially doubtful model assumptions, yet at the same time simple and easy to use. Tables with critical values and R code for the evaluations further ease adoption, as illustrated by three small examples. The power assessments indicate that the loss in power is only moderate as long as the number of replications is not excessive, making replicate evaluations in discrimination tests a viable option for showing equivalence. The common approach of concluding for equivalence when a test for differences does not turn out to be statistically significant is heavily flawed; given that a valid yet simple approach to establish equivalence from replicated discrimination and preference data is provided here, such practice should be abandoned.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17223,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sensory Studies","volume":"38 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sensory Studies","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joss.12882","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Using replications in discrimination tests is becoming more common in times of strict budgetary and time constraints. For the proof of differences, it is well-known that the standard binomial test can be used. However, it is no longer applicable if the objective is to show equivalence or non-inferiority, as potential differences among assessors (assessor heterogeneity/overdispersion) might invalidate the binomial test. We reapply ideas described earlier for the development of a confidence interval to derive a direct asymptotic test for equivalence or non-inferiority using replicated discrimination and preference data, both for the cases of equal and unequal numbers of replications among assessors. The suggested test is largely model-free, that is, does not require any assumptions that cannot be easily warranted by the test design and execution. At the same time, implementation is surprisingly easy by using the R code provided or any simple spreadsheet editor, or even manually.

Practical Applications

Showing equivalence in perception between stimuli becomes increasingly important in applications, for example, in cost-savings or product-matching. The suggested approach is statistically valid without potentially doubtful model assumptions, yet at the same time simple and easy to use. Tables with critical values and R code for the evaluations further ease adoption, as illustrated by three small examples. The power assessments indicate that the loss in power is only moderate as long as the number of replications is not excessive, making replicate evaluations in discrimination tests a viable option for showing equivalence. The common approach of concluding for equivalence when a test for differences does not turn out to be statistically significant is heavily flawed; given that a valid yet simple approach to establish equivalence from replicated discrimination and preference data is provided here, such practice should be abandoned.

利用重复的鉴别和偏好数据进行等效和非劣效性检验
在预算和时间都十分紧张的情况下,在区分检验中使用重复检验越来越普遍。众所周知,要证明差异,可以使用标准二项式检验。然而,如果目标是证明等效性或非劣效性,那么二项检验就不再适用,因为评估者之间的潜在差异(评估者异质性/过度分散性)可能会使二项检验失效。我们重新应用了前面描述的置信区间的开发思路,利用重复的鉴别和偏好数据,针对评估者之间重复次数相同和不等的情况,得出了等效或非劣效的直接渐近检验。所建议的检验基本上不需要模型,也就是说,不需要任何检验设计和执行不容易证明的假设。同时,使用所提供的 R 代码或任何简单的电子表格编辑器,甚至手动操作,实施起来都非常容易。 实际应用 在成本节约或产品匹配等应用中,显示刺激物之间的感知等效变得越来越重要。建议的方法在统计上是有效的,没有潜在的可疑模型假设,同时又简单易用。如三个小例子所示,包含临界值的表格和用于评估的 R 代码进一步方便了采用。功率评估结果表明,只要重复次数不过多,功率损失就不会太大,这使得在判别检验中进行重复评估成为显示等效性的一个可行选择。当差异检验结果在统计意义上不显著时就得出等效结论的常见方法存在严重缺陷;鉴于本文提供了一种有效而简单的方法,可从重复的歧视和偏好数据中确定等效性,这种做法应予以摒弃。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Sensory Studies
Journal of Sensory Studies 工程技术-食品科技
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sensory Studies publishes original research and review articles, as well as expository and tutorial papers focusing on observational and experimental studies that lead to development and application of sensory and consumer (including behavior) methods to products such as food and beverage, medical, agricultural, biological, pharmaceutical, cosmetics, or other materials; information such as marketing and consumer information; or improvement of services based on sensory methods. All papers should show some advancement of sensory science in terms of methods. The journal does NOT publish papers that focus primarily on the application of standard sensory techniques to experimental variations in products unless the authors can show a unique application of sensory in an unusual way or in a new product category where sensory methods usually have not been applied.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信