EFFECTIVENESS OF A SENSORY EVALUATION TRAINING VIDEO FOR USE IN A RESTAURANT SETTING By SYLVIA KAY jTOKES Bachelor of Science Western Kentucky Un1versity Bowling Green, Kentucky 1982 Master of Arts in Education Western Kentucky Univers1ty Bowling Green, Kentucky 1985 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 1991 Tl"e'i - lq'tl D "1tJ ~.._ OkJunoma Stnlc Univ. Library EFFECTIVENESS OF A SENSORY EVALUATION TRAINING VIDEO FOR USE IN A RESTAURANT SETTING Thesis Approved: Dean of the Graduate College ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been completed without the support and assistance of many people. Deepest gratitude is expressed to Dr. Margaret Callsen, who was always ready with encouragement. I would also like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the other faculty members of Oklahoma State University who served on my doctoral committee: Dr. Baker Bokorney; Dr. Bettye Gaffney; Dr. Elaine Jorgenson; Dr. Sue Knight; and Dr. William Warde. Their guidance was invaluable. Sincere thanks to John and Stacy Knight, for their assistance in developing the sensory evaluation video. It is impossible to name all the friends and fellow graduate students who provided moral support during this time. Deep gratitude is expressed for that support. A very special appreciation is expressed to my mother and father, Ann and Joe Stokes, and my brothers and sisters. They were always there to offer support and love. Words can not express the gratitude and love due them. I also thank Jim, my fiance and best friend, for helping me keep the end goal constantly in sight. And his parents, Robert and Anita Gaiko, for their moral support and belief in my abilities which contributed to helping me complete this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION . 1 Purpose •••••••• . 3 Objectives ••••• . .. 4 Null Hypotheses 5 Assumptions 5 Limitations 6 Definition of Terms 6 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9 History of Sensory Evaluation 10 Educational Philosophy .••••• 12 Utilizing.the Educational Video 13 Planning the Video •.••.••.•.....•••• 15 Analyzing Learner Characteristics 16 stating Objectives 17 Selecting, Modifying, or Designing Materials .................... 17 Utilizing the Video •..•.••••..• 20 Learner Responses & Evaluation . 21 Training a Sensory Taste Panel 22 Physiological Background 23 Sight 23 Smell 24 Sound and Feel ..••• 25 Taste . ...... 26 Designing the Appropriate Test 28 Preference/Acceptance Test . 28 Discriminatory Test ••••••• 34 Descriptive Test ..•••. 35 Steps in Evaluating a Food Product 38 III. RESEARCH PROCEDURES . 40 Research Design ••••••••••••••••• 40 Sample and Population .••••••• 41 Video Development ••••• 42 Data Collection .•••••.•••••• 46 Data Analysis .••••. 48 IV. FINDINGS . 50 iv Chapter Page Population and Sample •••••••••••••.••••••• 51 Treatment for the Students ••••.....••. 51 Examination of Hypothesis ••••••••••••••••. 52 Effectiveness of Sensory Video ••.••••• 52 Comparison of Products •••••••••••••.•• 52 Ranking of Pasta Products ••••••••••••• 53 Attitude Toward Sensory Evaluation 65 v. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, and RECOMMENDATIONS 76 Purposes and Objectives ••..••..••••••••••• 76 Hypotheses . • • . • • • • . • • • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • 7 7 Sample and Population ••••••••••••.•••••••• 77 Instrument . 77 Data Collection and Analysis •••..•••••••.. 78 Findings and Conclusions •.••••....••••..•• 80 Recommendations . • • . • • • • . • • • • • . • • . • • • • • • • 83 Implications . 84 REFERENCES 86 APPENDIXES 92 APPENDIX A - VIDEO SCRIPT 93 APPENDIX B - EVALUATION FORMS 107 APPENDIX C- TRIANGLE TEST ANALYSIS CHART •••••••. 113 ANOVA'S FOR PASTA v LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Summary of the Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Attributes Studied for Pasta Made from Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Durum Semolina Flour ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 55 II. Summary of the Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Attributes Studied for Pasta Made from Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Whole Egg . .....••....••••••••••••••••••..••.. 56 III. Summary of the Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Attributes Studied for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Dry Egg • •..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 57 IV. summary of the Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Attributes Studied for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Fresh Egg White • •••.••••••.•..•...•....•••••. 59 V. Summary of the Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Attributes Studied for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Egg Yolk ......................................... 60 VI. summary of the Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Attributes Studied for Pasta Made From Oklahoma hard Red Winter Wheat and No Egg. 61 vi Table Page VII. t-test Analysis Comparing Scores of the Control and Experimental Groups for the Pre-test, and a t-test Analysis Comparing Scores of the Control and Experimental Group for the Post-test ••••••••• 68 VIII. t-test Analysis Comparing Socres of the Pre-test and Post-test for the Experimental Group, and a t-Test Analysis Comparing Scores of the Pre­ test and Post-test for the Control Groups . ...................................... 71 IX. Mean Rating for the Pre-test and Post­ test Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups .•••••••••••••.••.••••••••••••• 73 X. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Group Scores of Acceptability on Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Witner Wheat and Durum Semolina Flour •••••••.••.••. ll5 XI. Analysis of Varinace of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Color on Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Witner Wheat and Durum Semolina Flour ••••••.••••••••....• ll5 XII. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Flavor on Pasta Made from Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Durum Semolina Flour •.••..••.••••••••••• ll6 XIII. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Texture on Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter WHeat and Durum Semolina Flour •••••••.••.••••••••• ll6 XIV. Analysis of Variance of Differences B'etween the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Acceptability for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Whole Egg ..••.•••••••••.••• ll7 XV. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Color for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Whole Egg . ..••.•.••.•.............•.•... 117 vii Table Page XVI. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Flavor for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Whole Egg ............................... 118 XVII. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Texture for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Witner Wheat and Whole Egg •••••••.••••.•••••••••••• 118 XVIII. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Acceptability for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Dry White ...•...••••••••••• 119 XIX. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Color for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Dry White . .............................. 119 XX. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Flavor for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Dry White . .............................. 12 0 XXI. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Texture for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Dry White ..........•••••••••••.••• 120 XXII. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Acceptability for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Fresh White •••••..•••..•••• 121 XXIII. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Color for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Fresh White . ............................ 121 viii Table Page XXIV. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Flavor for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Fresh White ....•••.•..•....•.•.......... 122 XXV. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Texture for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Fresh White ••••.•..•••.•••.•.••••• 122 XXVI. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Acceptability for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Witner Wheat and Egg Yolk •..••••••••••..•••• 123 XXVII. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Color for Pasta Made From Oklahoam Hard Red Winter Wheat and Egg Yolk ................................ 123 XXVIII. Analysis of Variance of Differences Between the Control and Experimental Groups Scores of Flavor for Pasta Made From Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat and Egg Yolk ••.....••••••••.••••••••••.•••••