Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales ☆

By N. D. M. Villanueva, A. Petenate, M. A. A. P. Silva. 2005

179 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Animal Science and Zoology, Food Science, Nutrition and Dietetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b4f5b26445fc4e1f7e90f8202ed2504dc97871e3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Animal Science and Zoology

1. Juyun Lim
2. C.M Delahunty
3. S. Jaeger

In Food Science

1. Juyun Lim
2. C.M Delahunty
3. S. Jaeger
4. Carl Johan Lagerkvist
5. G. Ares
6. Paula Varela
7. Betina Piqueras-Fiszman

In Nutrition and Dietetics

1. Juyun Lim
2. C.M Delahunty
3. S. Jaeger
4. G. Ares

Citations in the corpus

• Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods (2008, result): “Limited discrimination by preference ranking compared to acceptance methods has been previously reported (Villanueva et al., 2005).”
• Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory (2011, methodology): “In recognition of the above mentioned limitations observed in both the 9-point hedonic scale and the self-adjusting scale, Villanueva and colleagues proposed another relative scale, called the hybrid hedonic scale (Villanueva et al., 2005).”