Abstract CATA questions (check-all-that-apply) are popular for sensory product characterisation tasks with consumers. Lingering uncertainty over the meaning of term citation frequency was addressed in the present research, which directly compared CATA questions with intensity and applicability ratings obtained on 10 cm unstructured line scales. In three studies (n ~ 210 consumers per study), evidence fitting with expectations based on the extant literature was obtained to confirm that citation frequency reflects intensity. The two response types were strongly linearly related, meaning that it is possible to infer significant differences between samples for a given CATA term as representing differences in perceived intensity. This finding emphasises how, despite the simplicity of the CATA task and the fact that individual responses are not measures of intensity, the average citation frequencies do reflect perceived intensity. Therefore, across a group of consumers, there is no information loss relative to rating scales. A systematic difference between citation frequencies and intensity ratings was attenuation of scale use in the latter, which was between 15 and 80 on a 0 to 100 scale. Attenuation was less pronounced in CATA responses which spanned approx. 5 to 85%. In the second part of the research, which included six studies (n ~ 135 to 205 consumers per study) CATA questions were compared with applicability ratings obtained on 10 cm unstructured line scales. The results were highly similar to the comparison between CATA questions and intensity scales and further confirmed that average CATA term citation frequency can be interpreted as representing (but not directly measuring) consumers’ intensity perceptions. The attenuation in scale range was again observed. Collectively, the results contribute further support for the popularity of CATA questions for sensory characterization by consumers in product testing.

中文翻译：

---

Check-all-that-Apply (CATA) 问题：感官术语引用频率反映了额定术语强度和适用性

摘要 CATA 问题（勾选所有应用）在消费者的感官产品表征任务中很受欢迎。本研究解决了术语引用频率含义的长期不确定性，该研究直接将 CATA 问题与在 10 厘米非结构化线尺度上获得的强度和适用性评级进行了比较。在三项研究（每项研究约 210 名消费者）中，获得了符合基于现有文献的预期的证据，以确认引用频率反映了强度。这两种响应类型呈强线性相关，这意味着对于给定的 CATA 术语，可以推断样本之间的显着差异代表感知强度的差异。这一发现强调了如何，尽管 CATA 任务很简单，而且个人反应不是强度的衡量标准，但平均引用频率确实反映了感知强度。因此，在一组消费者中，没有相对于评分量表的信息丢失。引文频率和强度评级之间的系统差异是后者的量表使用衰减，在 0 到 100 的量表上介于 15 到 80 之间。CATA 响应中的衰减不太明显，跨越大约 5 到 85%。在研究的第二部分，其中包括六项研究（每项研究涉及 135 至 205 名消费者）CATA 问题与在 10 厘米非结构化线尺度上获得的适用性评级进行了比较。结果与 CATA 问题和强度量表之间的比较高度相似，并进一步证实平均 CATA 术语引用频率可以解释为代表（但不直接测量）消费者的强度感知。再次观察到尺度范围的衰减。总的来说，这些结果进一步支持了消费者在产品测试中进行感官表征的 CATA 问题的流行。