Seninde Denis Richard, Chambers Iv Edgar
Center for Sensory Analysis and Consumer Behavior, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66502, USA.
Foods. 2020 Oct 28;9(11):1566. doi: 10.3390/foods9111566.
Check All That Apply (CATA) has become a popular type of questionnaire response in sensory/consumer research in recent years. However, some authors have pointed out potential problems with the method. An online survey using either a Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) or Check-All-Statements (CAS) format for questions was conducted to provide a deeper understanding of the response data using the two question formats. With CATA, respondents select all terms or statements that apply from a given list, while, with CAS, respondents must respond (e.g., yes/no or agree/disagree) to each term or statement to show that it applies or does not apply. Respondents from five countries (Brazil, China, India, Spain, and the USA) were randomly assigned one of the two question formats ( = 200 per country per method). Motivations for eating items that belong to five food groups (starchy, protein, dairy, fruits, and desserts) were assessed. Results showed that CAS had higher percentages of "agree" responses than CATA. Also, the response ratio of CAS and CATA data was different, suggesting that interpretations of the data from each response type would also be different. Respondents in the USA, China, and Spain took longer to complete the CAS questionnaire, while respondents in Brazil and India had similar time durations for the two question formats. Overall, the CATA format was liked slightly more than the CAS format and fewer respondents dropped out of the survey when using the CATA response type. These findings suggest that the CATA format is quick and relatively easy for consumers to complete. However, it provokes fewer "apply" responses, which some psychologists suggest underestimates applicable terms or statements and CATA provides a different interpretation of data than the CAS format that requires consumers to respond to each term or statement. Further, CAS may overestimate the applicable terms. Consumer insights collected using CATA and CAS can lead to different decisions due to differences in data interpretation by researchers (e.g., marketers, nutritionists, product developers, and sensory scientists). More investigation is needed for the CATA and CAS question formats.
近年来，多选（CATA）已成为感官/消费者研究中一种流行的问卷回答类型。然而，一些作者指出了该方法存在的潜在问题。开展了一项在线调查，针对问题采用多选（CATA）或全选陈述（CAS）格式，以更深入地了解使用这两种问题格式时的回答数据。采用CATA时，受访者从给定列表中选择所有适用的术语或陈述，而采用CAS时，受访者必须对每个术语或陈述做出回应（例如，是/否或同意/不同意），以表明其适用或不适用。来自五个国家（巴西、中国、印度、西班牙和美国）的受访者被随机分配到两种问题格式中的一种（每种方法每个国家200人）。评估了食用属于五个食物组（淀粉类食物、蛋白质类食物、乳制品、水果和甜点）的食品的动机。结果显示，CAS的“同意”回答百分比高于CATA。此外，CAS和CATA数据的回答比率不同，这表明对每种回答类型的数据解释也会不同。美国、中国和西班牙的受访者完成CAS问卷的时间更长，而巴西和印度的受访者完成两种问题格式的时间相近。总体而言，CATA格式比CAS格式略受喜爱，使用CATA回答类型时退出调查的受访者更少。这些发现表明，CATA格式对消费者来说快速且相对容易完成。然而，它引发的“适用”回答较少，一些心理学家认为这低估了适用的术语或陈述，并且CATA与要求消费者对每个术语或陈述做出回应的CAS格式对数据的解释不同。此外，CAS可能高估了适用的术语。由于研究人员（例如，营销人员、营养学家、产品开发人员和感官科学家）对数据的解释存在差异，使用CATA和CAS收集的消费者见解可能会导致不同的决策。对于CATA和CAS问题格式，还需要进行更多的研究。
