Panelists' Performances and Strategies in Paper-Based and Computer-Based Projective Mapping.

Projective mapping has recently attracted a lot of attention and the main sensory data acquisition software packages have developed interfaces to collect projective mapping data. However, the comparison between paper- and computer-based projective mapping has never been reported. The objectives of this research were to (1) compare the consensus maps and panelists' performances for paper- and computer-based projective mapping and (2) analyze the panelists' strategies while performing either tasks. In the first part of the study, 32 panelists were asked to perform both paper- and computer-based projective mapping on eight beer samples. In a second part of the study, 10 panelists were asked to repeat the tasks while 'thinking aloud' their strategy. There was no significant difference in panelists' performance as assessed by the people performance index between the paper and computer tasks. The consensus maps obtained were similar with respect to sample groupings, RV coefficients and variation explained by the first two dimensions. Individual panelists adopted similar strategies on paper and computer, but strategies differed greatly between panelists. Practical Applications The results reported here will help panel leaders in making informed decisions with respect to support choice when designing projective mapping tests. Additionally, an insight into the diversity of panelists' mapping strategies is provided which may inform further research and discussion into the most appropriate instructions given to panelists and/or type of panel used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]